Bravo v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 41

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 7/21/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VICTOR J. BRAVO, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiff, No. C 12-06460 JSW v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendants. / 14 15 On February 10, 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC” to Plaintiff 16 Victor J. Bravo (“Bravo”) why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”), which requires a plaintiff to “plead a short and 18 plain statement of the elements of his or her claim.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 19 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court explained that, despite the length of Bravo’s first amended 20 complaint (“FAC”), he failed to provide a simple, short statement of the facts he alleged 21 occurred. Instead, he continually made broad conclusions that were not supported by factual 22 allegations. Moreover, he often grouped all of the defendants together and failed to allege which 23 defendants engaged in what activity and when. 24 Moreover, to the extent Bravo sought to bring a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 25 1983, the Court informed him that he must, but failed to, set forth non-conclusory facts 26 establishing the existence of a conspiracy to deprive him of a right guaranteed in the 27 Constitution or under the laws of the United States. Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 28 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th 1 Cir.1977) (“Conclusionary allegations, unsupported by facts, [will be] rejected as insufficient to 2 state a claim under the Civil Rights Act”....). 3 Additionally, the Court noted that to the extent Bravo named judges as defendants, his immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireless v. 6 Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978). A 7 judge lacks immunity only when he or she acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction ... or 8 performs an act that is not ‘judicial’ in nature.” Id. (internal citation omitted). The Court 9 informed Bravo that to the extent the Court could decipher his FAC, his allegations appeared to 10 concern actions taken in connection with judicial proceedings and thus appeared to be judicial 11 For the Northern District of California claims against them appeared to be barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. “[J]udicial 5 United States District Court 4 in nature. 12 The Court ordered Bravo to show cause in writing by no later than March 3, 2014, why 13 this case should not be dismissed for the reasons discussed above. On March 11, 2014, Bravo 14 filed an “Opposition to Dismissal of Complaint” as well as a request for an extension to March 15 11 to file his opposition. Bravo’s opposition fails to address any of the Court’s concerns raised 16 in the OSC. He fails to clarify his factual allegations or to state which defendant he alleges 17 engaged in what conduct. Moreover, to the extent Bravo does describe facts in his opposition, 18 he does not present facts that would be sufficient to state a valid claim, i.e. a claim that would 19 not be time barred, barred by the doctrine of res judicata, or barred by absolute judicial or 20 prosecutorial immunity. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES Bravo’s complaint 21 without leave to amend. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: July 21, 2014 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 VICTOR J BRAVO, Case Number: CV12-06460 JSW 6 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 v. 8 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al, 9 Defendant. / 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 12 District Court, Northern District of California. 13 That on July 21, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 14 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 Victor J. Bravo 17 P.O. Box 12617 San Francisco, CA 94112 18 Dated: July 21, 2014 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?