Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04693/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04693-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

PATRICK MISSUD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-04693 WHA

ORDER DENYING

RULE 60 MOTION

Plaintiff Patrick A. Missud was declared a vexatious litigant in 2012 and is currently

subject to pre-filing review. Missud v. National Rifle Association, No. 3:13-mc-80263-WHA,

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170498, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013); Missud v. San Francisco

Superior Court, No. 3:12-cv-03117-WHA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137351, at *9–10 (N.D. Cal.

Sept. 24, 2012). In July 2013, Attorney Missud was placed on involuntary inactive status with

the State Bar of California, after he was charged with seven counts of professional misconduct. 

In October 2013, his membership in the bar of this Court was suspended. In The Matter of

Patrick Alexandre Missud — # 219614, No. 3:13-mc-80182-WHA, Dkt. No. 3 (N.D. Cal.

Oct. 2, 2013).

Missud commenced this action against numerous governmental entities and officials

alleging a conspiracy involving parking tickets, which he describes as “Ferguson-on-$teroid$.” 

This action was related to a previous action and reassigned to the undersigned. The action was

dismissed.

Case 3:15-cv-04693-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/02/15 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

Missud received certain documents in response to a request for public records from the

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency that prove his claims that the City of San

Francisco has engaged in “an 11-year, half-billion-dollar racketeering $cheme” relating to

towing services. Missud submitted these documents in connection with his motion for

reconsideration of the order dismissing this action. He now seeks relief from the order denying

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3) because, he argues, the city attorney improperly withheld

those documents in response to a discovery request in a separate case. 

Missud’s motion is baseless. The orders from which he seeks relief considered the

evidence that he claims the city attorney improperly withheld. Missud’s vexatious motion is

plainly designed to waste judicial and government resources. The motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-04693-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2