Rodriguez v. Barrett

Filing 3

ORDER RE: PRE-FILING REVIEW. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/16/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-13-80003 MISC EMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: PRE-FILING REVIEW ROBIN BARRETT, Field Office Director U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services 12 13 Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 14 15 Plaintiff in this case is subject to pre-filing review for all complaints filed in this District 16 pursuant to a January 29, 2009 Order in the case Rodriguez v. City and County of San Francisco, 17 No. C-08-05257 MHP (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2009) (Docket No. 14). In that case, the court found that 18 Plaintiff had filed thirteen actions since 2006, and that “nearly all” of the actions concerned the same 19 parties, and the same allegations. Id. Plaintiff’s complaints in the various actions were “rambling 20 and incoherent,” but to the extent that the court was able to determine, all concerned the same 21 allegations of medical malpractice and head or eye injury. 22 The complaint in this case is one page long, alleges no specific facts, and claims only that 23 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights have been violated. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has attached forms 24 from the San Francisco Public Defender’s office regarding an application for a “clean slate” 25 program, and a photocopy of Plaintiff’s Roseville Transit senior citizen identification card. While it 26 is not clear that Plaintiff’s claim concerns allegations related to the cases that led him to be subject 27 to pre-filing review, with a complete absence of any factual allegations, it is impossible to make this 28 1 determination. Further, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 2 Civil Procedure, which requires all claims for relief to provide “a short and plain statement of the 3 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 4 The Clerk of the Court is therefore directed not to file Plaintiff’s complaint in this matter. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: January 16, 2013 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, 4 Case Number: CV13-80003 EMC Plaintiff, 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. 6 ROBIN BARRETT et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on January 16, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 16 Daniel Rodriguez 155 Hyde Street, Apt. 502 San Francisco, CA 94102 17 Dated: January 16, 2013 15 18 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Betty Lee, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?