Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01770/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01770-1/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

WILLIAM HENRY CLAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORENCE KORKAMES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01770-SI 

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND DISMISSING CASE WITH 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 50

Now pending before this Court is a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge 

Beeler, who recommends the Court dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff’s failure to state a 

claim. No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, though plaintiff has filed 

a letter with this Court noting that the present case “is closely related on a facts/issue basis to case 

#18-cv-07269 LB,” which is currently pending before Judge Beeler. See Dkt. No. 52. 

Plaintiff filed case #18-cv-07269 LB on November 29, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. In that case, 

plaintiff sued the City and County of San Francisco and five individual defendants, some of whom 

are the same individual defendants who are now part of this lawsuit. Plaintiff and the City and 

County of San Francisco both consented to have the case heard by a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. Nos. 

11, 16. Judge Beeler then dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, and plaintiff filed 

several amended complaints. Dkt. Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. 

On March 29, 2019, Judge Beeler issued an order sua sponte (on the Court’s own motion) 

severing plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants. Dkt. No. 43. Based on the complaint 

then that was then before the Court, Judge Beeler severed the claims, finding: that the claims against 

the individual defendants were factually distinct from the claims against the City and County of San 

Francisco; that the legal theories against the individual defendants (who were private actors) were 

distinct from the legal theories against the City and County of San Francisco (a state actor); and that 

“severance would further the prompt and efficient disposition of litigation.” Id. at 6-7. The severed 

Case 3:19-cv-01770-SI Document 53 Filed 05/24/19 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

claims against the individual defendants became the instant case, 19-cv-0170. Judge Beeler then 

dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Id. at 10. 

Judge Beeler allowed plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint against the individual 

defendants in the newly severed case. 

On April 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this case. Dkt. No. 47. Judge 

Beeler dismissed the complaint, again finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to 

state a claim. Dkt. No. 48. Judge Beeler allowed plaintiff one final chance to amend his complaint. 

Plaintiff then filed another amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint in this case.1 

See Dkt. No. 49. Judge Beeler has recommended this Court now dismiss the severed case against 

the individual defendants. Dkt. No. 50. Thus, the only question before this Court is the sufficiency 

of plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 49) in his case against the individual defendants. 

This Court hereby ADOPTS IN PART the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 50) and 

DISMISSES this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1). 

Liberally construing plaintiff’s pro se complaint, the Court does not dismiss the case for failure to 

state a claim, because plaintiff’s most recent complaint contains several allegations related to the 

“named parties,” whom the Court understands to be the five individual defendants plaintiff has sued. 

See Dkt. No. 49 at 5. However, the Court will dismiss this case based on lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. All of the claims plaintiff brings against the defendants are state law claims, so there 

is no federal question jurisdiction, and the complaint contains no allegations to support jurisdiction 

based on the diversity of the parties. See Dkt. No. 48 at 3-4. As Judge Beeler has given plaintiff 

multiple opportunities to amend his complaint to fix the jurisdictional issue, and the present 

complaint still fails to do so, the Court will not grant plaintiff further leave to amend. Therefore, 

this dismissal is with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1 By Judge Beeler’s count, the present complaint is plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Complaint

overall. See Dkt. Nos. 49, 50 at 1 n.1.

Case 3:19-cv-01770-SI Document 53 Filed 05/24/19 Page 2 of 2