Mohammad v. King City Police Department

Filing 13


Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 KHALID MOHAMMAD, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 17-cv-04477-BLF v. THE KING CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VAN KEULEN AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 12 13 14 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge 15 Susan van Keulen granting Plaintiff Khalid Mohammad’s (“Mohammad”) request to proceed in 16 forma pauperis, and dismissing this case with prejudice. ECF 7. The Court finds the Report 17 correct, well reasoned, and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. 18 When reviewing a Report and Recommendation for a nondispositive matter, a court must 19 “set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 72(a). For a dispositive matter, like the one at issue here, a court “must determine de novo any 21 part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 72(b)(1)(3). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections to the Report and Recommendation 23 have been filed and the deadline to object has lapsed. See Fed. R.Civ. P. 6(d), 72(b)(2) (deadline 24 for objections is seventeen days after being served by mail); Certificate of Service, ECF 7-1 25 (Mohammad served with Report by mail on September 28, 2017). 26 This case is related to two prior actions before this Court: Mohammad v. King City Police 27 Dep’t, Case No. 16-cv-02903-BLF; Mohammad v. King City Police Dep’t, Case No. 17-cv-00615- 28 BLF. See Order Relating Cases, ECF 11. As Magistrate Judge van Keulen explains in the Report, 1 this case is actually the fourth time that Mohammad has filed a claim arising out of his arrest and 2 subsequent incarceration by a King City Police Department Officer. See Report at 2 (summarizing 3 cases, including a similar case against a different defendant: Mohammad v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 4 Case No. 14-cv-03837). Moreover, the Court has reviewed the record in the related cases and 5 agrees with the Report that “the complaint here is virtually identical to the complaint Mohammad 6 filed in [the related cases].” See Report at 2. 7 One of the prior identical cases, 17-cv-00615, was dismissed without leave to amend on 8 June 16, 2017 because this Court found that “Mohammad has, over the course of four years, three 9 cases, and four motions, failed to remedy [the] basic error in his pleadings despite clear warnings[.]” See Case No. 16-cv-615, ECF 21. The Court finds that this fourth attempt the state a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 claim regarding this incident fares no better than Mohammad’s first three cases. Thus, the Court 12 agrees with the Report that this action is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 13 After reviewing the entire record in this case and the related actions, the Court finds the 14 Report correct, well reasoned, and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the 15 Court ORDERS as follows: 16 1. Mohammad’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED because he satisfies the economic eligibility requirement for IFP status; 17 18 2. The complaint in this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 19 3. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Mohammad and close the file. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 25 Dated: October 23, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 26 27 28 2

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?