Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04476/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04476-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD STYPMANN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

CHIEF HEATHER FONG, OFFICER # 4009,

OFFICER #127, SGT. O.J. BUENO, AND

DOES 1-10,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-004476 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

AND FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

This matter was initiated in this Court when it was removed from San Francisco

Superior Court on July 21, 2006. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss on July 28. 

Plaintiff timely filed an opposition on August 28. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted

on September 14, but plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff timely filed

an amended complaint on September 29. A case management conference was held on

October 19, which plaintiff attended. On November 2, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and

a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s opposition to those motions was due November 22. 

None was filed. On December 7, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendants’

motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment should not be granted for failure to

oppose. On December 12, plaintiff filed a “Request to Dismiss without Prejudice Due to Death

Case 3:06-cv-04476-WHA Document 28 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of Roommate and a Judicial Stacked Deck.” It did not state a valid basis for plaintiff’s failure

to oppose defendants’ motion.

Plaintiff has failed to show cause why defendants’ motions should not be granted. 

At the hearing on December 14, 2006, plaintiff did not appear. It would be unfair to defendants

at this late point in the proceedings to grant plaintiff’s request to dismiss without prejudice. 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are GRANTED on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04476-WHA Document 28 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2