Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03476/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03476-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS—C-07-03476 RMW

TSF

E-FILED on 11/26/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NEAL G. BENSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA MASONIC LODGE # 299,

SANTA CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT

AND CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CA,

MASONIC GRAND LODGE SAN

FRANCISCO, CA. SCOTTISH RITE

BODIES OF SAN JOSE, CA,

Defendants.

No. C-07-03476 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS

[Re Docket No. 8, 11]

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff Neal G. Benson's ("Benson") complaint for failure to

state a claim and as barred under res judicata. Benson's complaint stems from events that occurred

on August 1, 1991. Benson sued the same parties in this action in a prior action (C-03-00119),

which this court dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. As before, Benson's pleadings

remain unintelligible. In a recent filing, Benson states that, "My big ERROR WHEN FILING Case

Number C03 00119 was to not be per Civil rule 8 and Federal Rule civil Procedure 8 and not

pointing out the Illegal acts of Sgt. Rees." The allegedly illegal actions of Sgt. Rees took place in

Case 5:07-cv-03476-RMW Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1 Benson also states that, "I have the evidence to prosecute them and let the court

decide if they were guilty. The Federal court was the only possible place now I could get help?" 

Benson appears to have previously contacted the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the FBI. 

As the court has previously explained, only the government, and not individuals like Benson, may

press criminal charges. 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS—C-07-03476 RMW

TSF

2

1993. While acknowledging the error of omitting his new allegations, Benson does not explain why

they could not have been brought earlier.1

Res judicata exists to ensure finality. The doctrine applies to bar claims where a prior action

"(1) involved the same 'claim' or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the

merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies." Sidhu v. Flecto Co., Inc., 279 F.3d 896, 900

(9th Cir. 2002). Both Benson's prior case and his current complaint alleged that various criminal

acts occurred in the early 1990s that have deprived him of his honor and dignity. The prior case, 03-

00119, reached a final judgment on the merits and involved the same parties. See Federated Dep't

Stores, Inc. v. Moities, 452 U.S. 394, 399 & fn. 3 (1981) ("The dismissal for failure to state a claim

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a 'judgment on the merits.'"). As all of the

elements of res judicata apply, Benson's current attempt to relitigate the claims he raised in 03-

00119 are barred.

In further support of dismissal, the court finds that the complaint is not intelligible. A

complaint must be "simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). Despite acknowledging

that his pleadings are difficult for the court to understand (p. 112), Benson's complaint does not

inform the court of the nature of his claims. Benson's most recent pleading in opposition is

essentially a list of presumably criminal code sections and conclusory allegations that those sections

have been violated. This pleading does not cure the defects in his complaint, nor does it help the

court understand Benson's allegations.

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice.

DATED: 11/15/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03476-RMW Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS—C-07-03476 RMW

TSF

3

A copy of this order was mailed on 11/26/07 to:

Plaintiff:

Neal G. Benson (PRO SE)

5462 Begonia Drive

San Jose, CA 95124

Counsel for Defendants:

Peggy S. Doyle doyle@lbbslaw.com

Michael C. Serverian mserverian@rllss.com

Shawn Adrian Toliver toliver@lbbslaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Dated: 11/26/07 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-03476-RMW Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 3