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)

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