Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05543/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05543-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD SHANKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAKE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05543-JST 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Re: ECF No. 50

Plaintiff Ronald Shanko, proceeding pro se, filed this section 1983 action against

Defendants County of Lake (“the County”), Lake County Department of Community

Development Code Enforcement Division head Richard Coel, and building inspectors Brandon

Holleran and Michael Lockett in their official and private capacities. On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 39. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss 

the FAC, ECF No. 41, which motion the Court granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 50. 

Specifically, the Court (1) dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress claims against all Defendants; (2) dismissed without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim against all Defendants; (3) dismissed without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s equal protection and substantive due process claims against the individual defendants; 

(4) dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim against Defendants Cole 

and Locket; (5) denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim against 

Defendant Halloran; (6) denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s equal protection, procedural due 

process, and substantive due process claims against the County. ECF No. 50 at 13–14.

Regarding those claims which the Court dismissed without prejudice, the Court instructed 

Plaintiff that it would grant leave to amend “one final time.” Id. at 7, 9, 11, 12. The Court further 

instructed Plaintiff that if he wished “to file an amended complaint in response to [the order 

Case 3:14-cv-05543-JST Document 53 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss], he must do so no later than 28 

days from the date of [that] order.” Id. at 14. 

Plaintiff has neither filed a second amended complaint by the Court’s deadline nor filed 

anything else to explain his failure to do so. Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice 

those claims which the Court previously dismissed without prejudice in its July 27, 2015 Order. 

See Bass v. Ostachuk, No. 11-cv-00524, 2013 WL 164480, at *4 (D. Haw. Jan. 14, 2013) 

(dismissing with prejudice claims which were previously dismissed without prejudice after 

Plaintiff failed to amend complaint within the deadline set by the court). Specifically, the Court 

now dismisses with prejudice (1) Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim against all Defendants; 

(2) Plaintiff’s equal protection and substantive due process claims against the individual 

defendants; and (3) Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim against Defendants Cole and Locket. 

As a result, Plaintiff’s only remaining claims are his procedural due process claim against 

Defendant Halloran and his equal protection, procedural due process, and substantive due process 

claims against the County.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05543-JST Document 53 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 2