Missud v. State of California et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND RETURNING PAPERS. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 11, 2014. See also Dkt. Nos. 3:13-mc-80263-WHA, 3:12-cv-03117-WHA (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 14-80039 WHA

PATRICK A. MISSUD, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AND RETURNING PAPERS

v.

19

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
GREG SUHR, SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, TOM NOLAN, AUTORETURN, JOHN WICKER, SAN
FRANCISCO TRIAL COURTS,
CYNTHIA LEE, XEROX SOLUTIONS,
LDC COLLECTIONS, DAVID
CUMMINS, and DOES 1-2000,

20

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

/

21
22

Plaintiff Patrick A. Missud was declared a vexatious litigant in 2012 and is currently

23

subject to pre-filing review. Missud v. National Rifle Association, No. 3:13-mc-80263-WHA,

24

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170498, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013); Missud v. San Francisco

25

Superior Court, No. 3:12-cv-03117-WHA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137351, at *9-10 (N.D. Cal.

26

Sept. 24, 2012). In July 2013, Attorney Missud was placed on involuntary inactive status with

27

the State Bar of California, after he was charged with seven counts of professional misconduct.

28

In October 2013, his membership in the bar of this Court was suspended. In The Matter of

1

Patrick Alexandre Missud - # 219614, No. 3:13-mc-80182-WHA, Dkt. No. 3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2,

2

2013).

3

On February 10, the Clerk received a putative class action complaint pursuant to

4

42 U.S.C. 1983 against the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco

5

Police Department, “Auto-Return,” “San Francisco Trial Courts,” “Xerox Solutions,” and other

6

miscellaneous defendants. Generally, Attorney Missud alleges that defendants engaged in an

7

“illegal City-sponsored revenue generating scheme.” After reviewing the complaint, this order

8

finds it to be frivolous. This is yet another filing in plaintiff’s personal campaign to waste the

9

time and expense of the courts. The Clerk is ordered to return the complaint to plaintiff; it shall

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

not be filed.
A December 2013 order fined Attorney Missud $100 for violation of FRCP 11 and the

12

September 2012 order. It has come to the attention of the undersigned judge that Attorney

13

Missud has yet to pay this fine. Attorney Missud should please pay the $100 fine before

14

submitting documents to the Court.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: February 11, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2