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)

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