Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01661/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01661-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

WILLIAM M. COX,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JOSE VEGA; MICHELLE ZHAO; LAWRENCE

AV; HOLLY WEH; EDWIN BALLESTEROS;

and PAUL LAW, 

 Defendants.

__________________________________/

No. C 07-1661 CW

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On March 22, 2007, Plaintiff William M. Cox filed his

complaint and request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On March 26, 2007, the Court

issued an Order Dismissing Action with Leave to Amend (March 26

Order). In the March 26 Order, the Court explained that Plaintiff

had failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction over his

complaint and failed to include a demand for judgment for the

relief he sought. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to

amend no later than April 27, 2007. On March 30, 2007, Plaintiff

filed a first amended complaint (FAC). In his FAC, Plaintiff

attempted to state claims for violations of his rights under the

First and Fourth Amendments by five individuals who were staff at

Mission Creek Housing, where Plaintiff lived. On June 7, 2007, the

Court issued an Order Denying Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

And Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend (June 7 Order). In

Case 4:07-cv-01661-CW Document 13 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 4
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

the June 7 Order, the Court explained that Plaintiff’s allegations

were insufficient to state constitutional claims because he had

failed to assert factual allegations that the State exercised any

power or influence over the individuals named in Plaintiff’s FAC to

cause them to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The Court

also explained that Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to

establish that these individuals committed a constitutional

violation. In regard to the First Amendment claim, the Court

stated that it appeared that Plaintiff “alleges that he was

criticized for requesting an African American representative. 

Plaintiff does not indicate who criticized him or how he was

criticized or whether he was retaliated against for making this

statement or how his speech was chilled.” In regard to the Fourth

Amendment claim, the Court stated that Plaintiff alleges that

“someone came into his apartment without his knowledge and took his

federal legal papers. However, he does not indicate who came into

his room to take his legal papers and how this individual or

individuals acted under state law.” The Court also stated that

Plaintiff attempted to allege that his civil rights under §§ 441

and 443 were violated, but did not identify under which title of

the United States Code these statutes fall. The Court failed to

find any such statute that would apply to Plaintiff’s allegations.

In the June 7 Order, the Court gave Plaintiff the following

instructions: (1) name as a Defendant each individual who violated

his rights and specify how each Defendant acted under color of

state law and the actions of each Defendant that violated his

rights; (2) identify what title §§ 441 and 443 fall under and how

Case 4:07-cv-01661-CW Document 13 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 4
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

each Defendant violated the rights provided by these statutes.

Plaintiff has timely filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC). 

He has named six individuals as Defendants. However, in all other

respects, Plaintiff has failed to follow the Court’s instructions. 

In the SAC, Plaintiff alleges facts such as, “Jose Vega, Michelle

Zhao, Lawrence Av, Holly Weh, Edwin Ballesteros . . . have been in

my apartment #402 maybe #10 times, also every time I go to a

hospital in SF Saint Francis, there nothing wrong with me [sic].” 

Plaintiff alleges that Saint Francis Hospital does not tell him the

truth about his medical condition. He also alleges that there is a

toxic smell in his apartment, but “they” never test the air. 

These allegations fail to respond to the instructions given in

the Court’s June 7 Order regarding how to remedy the deficiencies

in his FAC.

Because this is the third time the Court has dismissed this

complaint, the dismissal is without leave to amend. However,

dismissal is without prejudice to filing in a paid complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 7/30/07

Dated:__________________ ______________________________ 

 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-01661-CW Document 13 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COX et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STAFF AT MISSION CREEK HOUSING et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-01661 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 30, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

William M. Cox

225 Berry Street # 402

San Francisco, CA 94158

Dated: July 30, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-01661-CW Document 13 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 4