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