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)

Download PDF
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

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?