Diop v. County of Marin et al

Filing 13

ORDER dismissing complaint and granting request to change venue to San Francisco division. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/16/2013. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RAMA DIOP,

8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AND GRANTING REQUEST TO CHANGE
VENUE TO SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

COUNTY OF MARIN, et al.,

12

No. C 12-6332 PJH

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
The court has reviewed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) filed by plaintiff Rama
14
Diop (“plaintiff”) on April 11, 2013. In dismissing the original complaint without prejudice,
15
the court wholly adopted the report and recommendation (“report”) of Magistrate Judge
16
Laporte. The report noted that the original complaint’s allegations were “conclusory” and
17
did “not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” The report
18
went on to note the following:
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff alleges that various judges, commissioners and referees violated her
rights, issued unfavorable decisions, acted despite conflicts of interest, and
conspired against her due to some bias but does not adequately state the
underlying basis for these bare bones allegations and legal conclusions.
Additionally, it appears that much of plaintiff’s complaint is based on her
disagreement with the decisions of other tribunals which this court has no
authority to review and/or for which the decision-makers are immune.

23
Dkt. 6 at 2-3. The report also noted that “[w]ith respect to all of [plaintiff’s] claims, it is
24
unclear which claims she asserts against which defendants.” Id. at 3. Many of these
25
deficiencies are still present in the FAC. While the FAC does attempt to separate each
26
cause of action into separate paragraphs, it still fails to make clear which causes of action
27
are asserted against which defendants. Moreover, the FAC’s allegations are still largely
28
conclusory, and rely on accusations without any discernable factual basis. For these

1

reasons, plaintiff’s FAC is again DISMISSED for failure to adequately state a claim.

2

Plaintiff shall be given one more opportunity to file an amended complaint in order to

3

correct the FAC’s deficiencies. The amended complaint must set forth separate

4

paragraphs for each cause of action, and must specifically identify each defendant against

5

whom each cause of action is asserted. No new claims or parties may be added. Plaintiff’s

6

second amended complaint must be filed by September 18, 2013. If the complaint does

7

not correct the deficiencies noted in the report and this order, it will be dismissed with

8

prejudice.

9

Additionally, although plaintiff has not made a formal motion to change venue, the

10

court notes that the FAC includes a “request[] that the court further considers changing the

11

venue in this case to San Francisco.” FAC at 3. Plaintiff explains that her car is not

12

operational, and that her back pain and arthritis prevents her from taking public

13

transportation to Oakland. Civil Local Rule 3-2(h) allows the court to transfer a case to

14

another division within the district if “the convenience of parties and witnesses and the

15

interests of justice will be served,” upon the Judge’s own motion or the motion of any party.

16

Given that plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes plaintiff’s request in the FAC as

17

a motion to change venue, and hereby GRANTS the motion, and orders this case

18

transferred to the San Francisco division.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 16, 2013
_________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge