Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05026/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05026-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

MARY LEE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-5026 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights action brought pro se by a federal inmate. She has been barred by

this Court from proceeding in forma pauperis because she has filed three or more cases which

were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

but in this case she has paid the filing fee. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend

because it was “unmanageable in its present form.” She was instructed to “state clearly and

succinctly what each of the named defendants did that she contends was a violation of her

constitutional rights.” The Court also provided an extensive explanation of the specific

deficiencies of some of the claims. Plaintiff filed an amendment which added twenty

defendants to the ten already in the case and which was largely incomprehensible.

The Court once more dismissed with leave to amend, saying that “[p]laintiff will be

afforded one more chance to amend.” She was advised as follows:

Case 3:03-cv-05026-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 She may include any defendants she sees fit, of course, but should note

that including claims where venue here is incorrect, or defendants over whom

the Court cannot obtain jurisdiction, clutters the complaint and adds to the

already serious problem of ascertaining the exact nature of each claim. Such

claims and defendants will be dismissed if the case is allowed to proceed, so

including them does not benefit plaintiff.

If plaintiff decides to file a second amended complaint, she must divide

her complaint into claims, set out numbered paragraphs within each claim, and

clearly indicate which defendants are intended to be liable on each claim. She

must provide factual allegations as to what each defendant did, where it

happened (e.g., in Dublin, Victorville, Carswell, etc) and indicate at least

roughly when the defendant is alleged to have done it, so it is possible for the

defendant to respond to the claim. She should bear in mind that only violations

of federal law, including the Constitution, are actionable.

In her Second Amended Complaints plaintiff has not listed which defendants are

intended to be defendants on which claims, and still includes many inappropriate defendants. 

More importantly, the complaint still consists largely of conclusory allegations. For instance,

as part of a claim headed “Malicious Prosecution” she says, with regard to the institution of a

criminal action against her: “the initiation of criminal prosecution was not performed by

L.A.P.D. nor can the State of California enter into any agreement with federal government, to

deprive citizen of freedom with respect to the “Declaration of Independence[”] and police

power of the 10th Amendment and Article 1 sec. 8&9 for federal and sec. 10 for State, “No Bill

of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed/Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” 

She does not say against whom this claim, if it is a claim, is asserted.

The above is just one example among many. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the

Court’s order and has failed to state a claim. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Fed.

R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 41(b). The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3 , 2007 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.03\JOHNSON026.DMS.wpd 

Case 3:03-cv-05026-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2