Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00655/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00655-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE SPITTAL, No. CIV.S-06-0655 WBS DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ROXANNE FINDLAY, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motions to

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was taken under submission without

oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). Plaintiff has not

filed opposition despite having been served with the motions.

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the

granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the

noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that "[n]o party

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral

arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by

Case 2:06-cv-00655-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

that party." Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with

the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court." Finally, Local Rule 83-183, governing

persons appearing in propria persona, provides that persons

representing themselves are bound by the Federal Rules and the Local

Rules and failure to comply therewith may be grounds for dismissal,

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction.

Pursuant to the local rules, the court deems plaintiff’s

failure to file an opposition as a non-opposition to the pending

motions and will recommend that the motions be granted on that basis. 

Failure to follow a district court's local rules is proper grounds

for dismissal. United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir.

1979). A court may dismiss an action for plaintiff's failure to

oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule

determines that failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a waiver of

opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995);

cf. Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir.

1993) (motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a

sanction for a local rules violation).

The undersigned also will recommend that defendants’

motions be granted on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint is partially

typed, partially handwritten and in places illegible. The

discernible allegations are vague and conclusory. The court has

determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain

statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the

Case 2:06-cv-00655-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give

fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff’s claim. Id. The complaint fails to meet these

requirements. Indeed, the complaint appears to be merely another

attempt by plaintiff to harass the Sacramento City Unified School

District and its employees as a result of various inequities

perceived by plaintiff who has worked as a substitute teacher at

SCUSD. Thus, the court finds that the complaint’s vague allegations

do not amount to a short plain statement of a claim showing that

plaintiff is entitled to relief or set forth any factual allegations

giving rise to federal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1),

(2).

Finally, the court is persuaded by defendants’ argument

that this action simply is an attempt to circumvent the March 24,

2006, order of Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows in Spittal v.

Apel, No. CIV.S-05-2042 FCD GGH PS. That order, which issued just

five days before plaintiff initiated this action, dismissed a similar

complaint without leave to amend and directed plaintiff to show cause

in writing why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. 

Plaintiff ultimately was declared a vexatious litigant and is now

subject to pre-filing restrictions.

For all of these reasons, defendants’ motions should be

granted and plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The court has

Case 2:06-cv-00655-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

considered whether leave to amend should be granted but plaintiff’s

litigation history in this court speaks for itself. Leave to amend

would be futile. See Reddy v. Litton Industries, Inc., 912 F.2d 291,

296 (9th Cir. 1990); Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829

F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’

motions to dismiss be granted and that plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 27, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\spittal0655.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-00655-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 4 of 4