Mosley v. City of Coronado et al

Filing 51

ORDER OF DISMISSAL.The Court orders Mosley not to contact Chambers through email or phone. If Mosley disregards this order, the Court will hold him in contempt. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/5/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAROLD WAYNE MOSLEY, CASE NO. 16cv65-LAB (DHB) 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL vs. CITY OF CORONADO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Last year, Harold Wayne Mosley, a homeless pro se litigant, sued various city entities 17 and officers for violations of his civil rights. For example, he alleged that he was “unlawfully 18 arrested” and while incarcerated, a dentist inflicted "torture" on him by performing dental 19 work without novocaine. He also says the “Mayor/City Manager/D.A.” put “out an illegal 20 (“most wanted”) status + orders to extract [Mosley] at all costs from their public properties.” 21 Mosley demanded $4 million in damages. 22 Judge Huff dismissed Mosley’s complaint, but granted him leave to amend. Mosley 23 filed another complaint and Judge Huff dismissed it sua sponte for failing to fix the errors she 24 previously identified. She offered Mosley another opportunity to amend. Instead, he filed the 25 same complaint. Judge Huff recused and the case was transferred to this Court. Defendants 26 have moved to dismiss. 27 The Defendants argue the case should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to 28 comply with a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court agrees. Mosley has filed -1- 16cv65 1 about four complaints. The most recent is the same complaint Judge Huff dismissed sua 2 sponte last summer. Judge Huff read Mosley’s complaint as charitably as possible and 3 patiently explained the issues he needed to address to state a viable claim. He didn’t. The 4 Court finds dismissal is proper under the factors discussed in Bautista v. Los Angeles 5 County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 Even if Mosley had complied with court orders, the Court must “dismiss the case at 7 any time" when it determines the action is "frivolous." 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The in forma 8 pauperis “statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an 9 indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the 10 complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are 11 clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The closest Mosley came 12 to making a legal argument was an email to the Court referencing Pottinger v. City of Miami, 13 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1561 (S.D. Fla. 1992), where the City of Miami was found liable for 14 having an unconstitutional policy of arresting homeless people. But Judge Huff addressed 15 Mosley’s claims against the City of Coronado in her order of dismissal. The Court finds 16 Mosley’s factual contentions baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 17 Mosley has repeatedly sent the Court inappropriate ex parte emails. Two weeks ago, 18 the Court addressed this issue in an order and arranged for the Clerk’s Office to reach out 19 to Mosley. Nonetheless, Mosley emailed the Court again.1 The Court orders Mosley not to 20 contact Chambers through email or phone. If Mosley disregards this order, the Court will hold 21 him in contempt. The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 5, 2017 24 25 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 26 27 28 1 Here’s an excerpt from Mosley’s most recent email to the Court: “Notice &,motions to strike quash or otherwise disembowel defenses hanous to obstruct justice & lying repeatedly under oath. With prejudice!!! If the court goes along with his farse it should be held accountable as well by Grand Jury. This is primafacea evidence. If you can't read it I'll buy u glasses What size u need?” 16cv65 -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?