Missud v. State of California et al

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 56 Mr. Missud's Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PATRICK A. MISSUD,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

No. C-14-1503 EMC
ORDER DENYING MR. MISSUD’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 56)

13
14
15

On July 8, 2014, this Court dismissed Mr. Missud’s § 1983 cause of action with prejudice

16

and remanded his remaining state law causes of action to California state court. On July 28, 2014,

17

Mr. Missud filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal along with an application for a

18

temporary restraining order (one of several filed in this action).

19

While Mr. Missud’s motion is far from clear, he appears to argue that the Court erred in

20

dismissing his § 1983 cause of action on res judicata grounds because only “2 of the 13 RICO

21

$cheme$ plead to heightened standards in this instant 1503 were also detailed in former [case no.

22

12-cv-]5468.” Docket No. 56, at 4. Mr. Missud’s complaint in this action stated: “In general, all of

23

these Defendants participate in a number of racketeering schemes to defraud the unsuspecting

24

public. Thirteen have been identified, only a few of which follow.” Docket No. 1-1, at 13. What

25

followed were factual allegations pertaining to issues this Court had adjudicated in Case No. 12-cv-

26

5468. Mr. Missud failed to allege any facts in support of any “racketeering schemes” that were not

27

addressed, and rejected, by this Court in case No. 12-cv-5468.

28

1

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Missud’s motion for reconsideration and application for a

2

temporary restraining order are DENIED. This case is closed. This is without prejudice to any

3

appellate rights Mr. Missud may have. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ORDERED to not accept

4

any further filings in this closed action except for any notice of appeal. In addition, any new

5

complaints filed by Mr. Missud remain subject to pre-filing review. See Missud v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n,

6

et al., No. 3:13-mc-80263-WHA (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: July 30, 2014

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2