Bernstein et al v. Dunlop et al

Filing 44

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND DENYING APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/18/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 JOHN L. BERNSTEIN, et. al., Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA JANET DUNLOP, et al., 15 No. C 13-1563 RS Defendants ____________________________________/ 16 17 The original complaint in this action was 26 pages long. In the understated words of the 18 magistrate judge who conducted a review of the allegations pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B), 19 the complaint was “difficult to comprehend.” The magistrate judge nevertheless identified certain 20 claims that at least theoretically might be possible for plaintiff to pursue, and issued a Report and 21 Recommendation the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend as to those claims. The Report 22 and Recommendation was adopted in full as the order of the Court. In response, plaintiff Michael Leon1 filed a First Amended Complaint, and then, without 23 24 permission, a Second Amended Complaint, and later a “Revised First Amended Complaint.” These 25 three substantially similar pleadings are each over 130 pages long and are filled with lengthy 26 27 28 1 All other purported plaintiffs were previously dismissed without leave to amend. While the amended complaints continue to list one other individual as a plaintiff in the caption, only Leon is a signatory. 1 quotations from various media sources, Bible verses, photographs, and cartoon drawings. Despite 2 the addition of such material, Leon has not provided any factual material to address the deficiencies 3 identified in the Report and Recommendation. While it remains the case that it might be 4 theoretically possible to state an ADA claim against judicial defendants, and/or a Section 1983 5 claim against law enforcement defendants, there is no indication that Leon will ever be able to do so 6 under the circumstances here. Additionally, there is no apparent basis in any event to pursue in this 7 court claims relating to judicial proceedings or police conduct in Arizona. 8 While pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, and leave to amend freely granted, the 9 additions made to the original complaint demonstrate that permitting further amendments would be 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 futile. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without leave to amend. Leon’s procedurally and substantively deficient “application for issuance of a subpoena” is therefore moot, and the hearing set for December 19, 2013 is vacated. The Clerk shall close the file. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 18 Dated: December 18, 2013 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?