Cruz v. Villarneal et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 21 Motion to Dismiss; denying 22 Ex Parte Application; denying 24 Motion for Settlement. Amended Complaint due by 5/26/2023. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ALEJANDRO REYES CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 23-cv-00962-CRB

VICTOR VILLARNEAL, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

In March, pro se plaintiff Alejandro Reyes Cruz (“Cruz”) filed suit claiming that

14

unnamed Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies fabricated arrest records, “used restraining

15

orders which were filed under coercion,” and verbally abused Cruz in front of other

16

deputies during an arrest. See Compl. (dkt. 1). Cruz filed suit against Victor Villarneal,

17

the federal government, USCIS and ICE, the Oakland Police Department, and the Alameda

18

County Sheriff’s Department. Id. In April, the Oakland Police Department (“OPD”)

19

moved to dismiss. See Mot. (dkt. 21). While Cruz failed to oppose the motion by the

20

response deadline, he filed other motions indicating that he opposes dismissal.1 Therefore,

21

the Court addresses OPD’s motion on the merits, rather than dismissing Cruz’s claims for

22

failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Order of Dismissal, McCray v. Begor, 22-cv-6322-CRB,

23
24
25
26
27
28

Cruz filed a “First Ex Parte Application” consisting of incident reports from the Oakland Police
Department. See dkt. 22. The Court assumes that these filings were intended to represent a
renewal of Cruz’s multiple prior motions for a protective order in this case. Cruz also filed a
“motion for settlement” indicating that he would accept a position as a docket clerk with this
Court in exchange for releasing his claims against the defendants. See dkt. 24.
As to the renewed motion for a protective order, it is DENIED as moot. As to the motion
for settlement, it is DENIED on the merits with prejudice, because the Court lacks the power—not
to mention the inclination—to orchestrate a settlement of Cruz’s claims, especially given that, as
discussed below, Cruz has failed to plausibly plead his claims.
1