Glass v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Filing 49

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING SANCTIONS MOTION. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/24/2017. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEIGH GLASS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02142-JD

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND
DENYING SANCTIONS MOTION

Defendant.

12
13
14

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 16)
Defendant asks the Court to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because “the federal government has not waived its

16

sovereign immunity” for plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 16 at 1-2. The Court finds, however, that

17

that argument is somewhat premature, and dismissal of the complaint is more appropriate under a

18

different rule. As defendant notes, plaintiff’s complaint “does not identify the specific statutes

19

under which she is suing.” Id. at 2. Indeed, the complaint makes no reference to any law,

20

statutory or otherwise, other than a reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (the federal question statute) as

21

the basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2.

22

Dismissal is consequently appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). That

23

rule requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

24

relief,” which “give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon

25

which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff’s complaint

26

fails this requirement because it gives no indication of the legal bases for her claims for relief. A

27

defendant required to respond to such a complaint “would have little idea where to begin.”

28

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 n.10. Plaintiff has, however, requested leave to amend in the event of a

1

dismissal, see Dkt. No. 30, and that is entirely appropriate here. The Court dismisses plaintiff’s

2

complaint with leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), and sets April 21,

3

2017, as the deadline by which an amended complaint may be filed.

4

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DKT. NO. 34)

5

Plaintiff’s sanctions motion against the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this

6

case and her supervisor is wholly without merit and it is denied. Nothing described in plaintiff’s

7

motion comes close to approaching sanctionable conduct.
In making her motion, plaintiff unnecessarily disparages the other side. See, e.g., Dkt.

8
9

No. 34 at 4 (suggesting the government’s arguments here are “frivolous and ridiculous”). That
plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this case does not excuse her from observing basic rules of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

civility, courtesy and respect. Plaintiff has failed in that regard with respect to court staff as well.

12

See Dkt. No. 43. Plaintiff is admonished that future failures in this regard will not be well taken

13

by the Court, and reminded that sanctions may be imposed if this kind of improper litigation

14

conduct continues, including the possible termination of plaintiff’s ECF filing rights. See Dkt.

15

No. 45.

16

OTHER OUTSTANDING MOTIONS

17

The Court terminates as moot docket numbers 31, 32, 33 and 48.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: March 24, 2017

20
21
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2