Weith v. San Francisco Police Department et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 14 Ex Parte Application and dismissing complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 United States District Court 9 OAKLAND DIVISION 12 13 14 JAN ALEC WEITH, an individual, 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 17 18 19 CASE NO. 4:10-CV-04701 DMR ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Defendants. 20 21 22 ____________________________________/ 23 24 On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff Alec Jan Weith filed a Complaint and Application to Proceed 25 In Forma Pauperis before this Court, in which he named the San Francisco Police Department and 26 the City and County of San Francisco as Defendants. See Dockets Nos. 1 & 2. In his one-sentence 27 complaint, Mr. Weith alleged that Defendants discriminated against him and violated the Americans 28 with Disabilities Act. On January 13, 2011, the Court granted Mr. Weith In Forma Pauperis status, but dismissed the Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. See Docket No. 12. The 1 Court allowed Mr. Weith until March 31, 2011 to file an amended complaint, ordering that his 2 failure to so file would result in dismissal of the suit for failure to prosecute. On March 8, 2011, Mr. Weith filed an Application for Ex Parte Order for the Immediate 3 be provided “copies of [the] entire case file,” alleging that his copies have been “lost and stolen 6 from the jail.” Id. Mr. Weith’s Ex Parte Application also includes a single reference to “Equal 7 Protection i.e. malicious prosecution,” with no explanation as to the meaning of that sentence. 8 Attached to Mr. Weith’s Ex Parte Application are also included two exhibits. The first appears to be 9 a booking form for Mr. Weith from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and a sheet of paper 10 with a series of numbers scribbled onto it. The second exhibit appears to be a form from the City 11 For the Northern District of California Release of Petitioner/Plaintiff. See Docket No. 14. In that filing, Mr. Weith simply requests that he 5 United States District Court 4 and County of San Francisco with information for retrieving property from the police. On that 12 form, Mr. Weith has written a series of notes in which he states that his apartment in North Beach 13 and truck were taken from him, that he was illegally evicted, that he was beaten by “[the] SFPD 14 Sheriff” and “[the] Police Chief’s security staff,” that he was falsely charged, and that “the District 15 Attorney (former police chief George Gascon) the SFPD (Defendant in my lawsuit along with 16 George Gascon + Officer Alvarez et al) have ignored my pleas for protection from being assaulted.” 17 Id. 18 Mr. Weith’s Ex Parte Application does not appear to be an amended complaint as required 19 by the Court’s January 12, 2011 order, even when liberally construed, and so his case must be 20 dismissed for failure to prosecute. Moreover, even were his filing deemed an amended complaint, it 21 contains scant and conclusory factual allegations and therefore fails “to state a claim to relief that is 22 plausible on its face.” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570 (2007). As Mr. Weith 23 has now been given over four months to amend, it appears that no amendment can cure the defect in 24 his Complaint and that dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. See Franklin v. Murphy, 25 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (citations omitted). Therefore, the Complaint must be dismissed with 26 prejudice and without leave to amend. Additionally, the Application for Ex Parte Order for the 27 Immediate Release of Petitioner/Plaintiff, which seeks relief that the Court lacks jurisdiction to 28 provide, must be denied as moot. 2 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: May 18, 2011 4 5 DONNA M. RYU UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?