Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00774/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00774-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LEONA CANNON, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C-07-00774 EDL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

The Court has before it the City & County of San Francisco’s (“the City”) Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff, who is pro se, did not file an opposition to the motion. The

Court has fully reviewed the papers and finds that this matter is appropriate for a decision without a

hearing. At this time, some but not all of the parties have consented to have this matter heard by a

magistrate judge. Accordingly, the Court hereby vacates the May 22, 2007 hearing and

RECOMMENDS that Defendant City & County of San Francisco’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings be GRANTED for the reasons stated in Defendant’s papers and as set forth below. 

On February 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging three causes of action: a violation

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, a denial of reasonable

accommodation under the Americans Without Disabilities Act, and a claim for nuisance relating to

the alleged collapse of a tree which fell from Defendant Cannon’s property onto Plaintiff’s adjoining

property, causing injury to Plaintiff. The City answered the Complaint on March 5, 2007, and later

moved for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and (h)(2)(a defense of

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted may be brought by a motion for judgment

on the pleadings). 

Case 3:07-cv-00774-SI Document 14 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when, even if all material facts in the pleading

under attack are true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hal Roach

Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). “In civil rights

cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and must

afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621,

623 (9th Cir. 1988). The City argues that, even liberally construed, none of the claims in the

Complaint assert any conduct by the City, let alone wrongful conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff would

not be able to successfully amend the pleadings to allege a valid cause of action against the City.

The Court agrees.

The first cause of action, alleging a violation of due process and equal protection, appears to

be founded in Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with a state judge’s actions during a hearing that took place

in February in San Francisco Superior Court. The allegations contain no references

to the City; they only describe the actions of a judge of the San Francisco Superior Court. The

actions of a judge of the San Francisco Superior Court are not attributable to the City, however,

because the San Francisco Superior Court is not an agency of the city or county in which the court

sits. See, e.g., Jones v. County of Los Angeles, 99 Cal.App. 4th 1039, 1045 (2002). Thus, even if

the allegations in the Complaint were true, Plaintiff has not alleged a cause of action against the

City. 

The second cause of action, alleging a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act, is devoid of details as to Plaintiff’s alleged denial of reasonable accommodation, and fails to

indicate who allegedly denied accommodation and how, or whether that person or entity had any

duty to do so in the first instance. Plaintiff has failed to provide any Defendant with adequate notice

of the claims alleged against them and the cause of action should accordingly be dismissed. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring a “short and plain” statement of Plaintiff’s claims); see also Brazil v.

United States Dept. of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) (even under the liberal pleading

standards afforded to pro se litigants, Plaintiff must provide Defendants with “notice of what [they]

allegedly did wrong.”). Further, even if Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts about the purported

accommodation failures of the judge and/or the Superior Court, these allegations would fail to state

Case 3:07-cv-00774-SI Document 14 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

a claim against the City. 

The third cause of action, the claim for nuisance, is a common law claim alleging wrongs by

Defendant Cannon. The Complaint alleges only that Defendant Cannon had a tree that fell upon

Plaintiff, causing him to incur medical bills and causing Margie Johnson emotional injury. See

Complaint (Third Cause of Action). Plaintiff fails to state any facts that involve the City in any way,

or allege that the City had any responsibility for the actions of Defendant Cannon. The Plaintiff also

does not allege that he filed a government tort claim as required to pursue a tort claim against the

City. Accordingly this cause of action against the City fails. 

Thus, none of Plaintiff’s claims against the City are valid. As to the first two claims, he has

sued the wrong entity. As to the third claim, he has not alleged any misconduct by the City and has

failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act.

Even liberally construed, the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint do not allege any claim

against Defendant City & County of San Francisco. Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the

pleadings should be granted. Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with

the District Judge within ten days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: May 16, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00774-SI Document 14 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 3