Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02200/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02200-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-2200 JF

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 6/4/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DONG THANH VO,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-2200 JF

ORDER DENYING RENEWED 1

MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

[re: docket no. 34, 41]

Plaintiff Dong Thanh Vo renews his prior motion to stay the instant action. Defendant

San Jose Police Department (“SJPD”) moves to dismiss the operative amended complaint. For

the reasons discussed below, the renewed motion to stay the action will be denied, and the

motion to dismiss the complaint will be granted without leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 47 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Notwithstanding their untimeliness, the Court has reviewed all documents filed by 2

Plaintiff as of the date of this order.

2

Case No. C 05-2200 JF

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this action on May 31, 2005, naming defendants

SJPD, Delta Towing, Inc., and the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California. 

Plaintiff alleged that his vehicle was impounded improperly by the SJPD and requested relief in

the form of the release of his vehicle as well as compensation for “suffering and/or unspecific

damage(s).” 

On October 19, 2005, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s first application to

proceed in forma pauperis, concluding that based on the facts alleged it did not have subject

matter jurisdiction. On March 1, 2006, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s second

application to proceed in forma pauperis, again concluding that it did not have subject matter

jurisdiction. The Court instructed Plaintiff that it would not “grant any future application to

proceed in forma pauperis if Plaintiff has not amended his complaint such that it states a nonfrivolous claim over which this Court has jurisdiction.” March 1, 2006 Order 2. 

On September 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On October 3, 2006,

without leave of court, Plaintiff filed an amendment to this amended complaint. On October 25,

2006, SJPD moved to dismiss the action against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed opposition to the

motion on January 12, 2007, the day of oral argument. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the

Court considered Plaintiff’s opposition and granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

On March 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a further amended complaint (“the TAC”). On March

26, 2007, SJPD moved to dismiss the TAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and other

deficiencies. On May 18, 2007, and on May 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed untimely papers in

opposition. The Court heard oral argument on May 25, 2007.2

On March 29, 2007, Plaintiff moved to stay the action. The Court denied that motion on

April 5, 2007. On May 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion that apparently renews his motion to

stay the action. The Court concludes that this motion is appropriate for decision without oral

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 47 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Case No. C 05-2200 JF

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

argument under Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, and the

Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Leave to amend must be granted unless it is clear that the

complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections,

66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). When amendment would be futile, however, dismissal may be

ordered with prejudice. Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 393 (9th Cir. 1996). The pleading of a pro

se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney, and is to be

afforded the benefit of any doubt. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Karim-Panahi v.

Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, a pro se litigant

must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.

1995). 

III. DISCUSSION

The renewed motion to stay does not explain why a stay would be appropriate. It refers to

a number of different federal regulations and statutes, but these references are confusing, and it is

unclear how the cited provisions relate to Plaintiff’s action. References to social security

proceedings and to a purported intervenor further confuse the renewed motion. Accordingly, the

renewed motion to stay will be denied.

Like the previously-filed complaints, the TAC does not state a discernible legal claim

against the SJPD. While it is apparent that the dispute stems from the impounding of Plaintiff’s

vehicle, Plaintiff does not indicate what actions form the basis of his complaint against the SJPD. 

Nor does Plaintiff identify a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; the parties are not

diverse, and the complaint does not identify a federal statute or constitutional provision pursuant

to which Plaintiff brings suit. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint. Despite

numerous opportunities, Plaintiff has failed repeatedly to state a claim or to identify a relevant

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 47 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 5
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

 Plaintiff apparently has never served two of the defendants named in his complaint,

3

Delta Towing, Inc., and Department Motor Vehicles State of California. Because the Court has

concluded that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, judgment will be entered as to all defendants. 

4

Case No. C 05-2200 JF

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

federal statute or other basis of jurisdiction. Nothing in the opposition papers filed by Plaintiff

identifies a basis for jurisdiction. The requests for a stay of the action refer to a purported

intervenor and to social security benefits; references that have no apparent connection to the

impounding of Plaintiff’s vehicle and that thus do not suggest a basis for federal jurisdiction with

respect to that incident. In response to a direct question from the Court, Plaintiff acknowledged

at oral argument that the case stems from the impounding of his vehicle, but he did not explain

why such a claim could not have been brought in state court after the exhaustion of the

appropriate administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court concludes that further amendment

of the complaint would be futile. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the renewed motion to

stay the action is DENIED and that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend.3

DATED: June 4, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 47 Filed 06/04/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 05-2200 JF

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Nkia Desiree Richardson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov, Eileen.Aparicio@sanjoseca.gov 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Dong Thanh Vo

Post Office Box 24

San Jose, CA 95103

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 47 Filed 06/04/07 Page 5 of 5