Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01157/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01157-0/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,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1157 MCE KJM PS

vs.

BOBBI MONTOYA, et al., ORDER

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Defendants’ motions to dismiss came on regularly for hearing October 19, 2006. 

George Spittal appeared in propria persona. Debora Luther appeared for the federal defendants.

Justin Telford appeared for the school district defendants. Upon review of the motions and the

documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel and

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

This action arises out of a dispute plaintiff had with school district employees and

the subsequent litigation pertaining to that dispute. In this action, plaintiff names as defendants

Bobbie Montoya and McGregor Scott (“federal defendants”), as well as school district employees

and the lawyers and law firm that represented them in the multiple actions plaintiff has brought

against the school district and its employees (“school district defendants”). Pending before the

court are the motions to dismiss brought by the federal and school district defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-01157-MCE -KJM Document 26 Filed 10/27/05 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

1

 The court hereby takes judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201of the court files

and documents filed therein of the other actions filed by plaintiff in this court as set forth in the

school district defendants’ brief in support of their motion to dismiss, filed September 8, 2005, at

footnote 1. See docket no. 18.

2

Although plaintiff apparently is trying to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and/or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named DEA Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1970), the complaint falls far

short of stating a claim. Although the amended complaint and plaintiff’s opposition are replete

with denunciatory jeremiads that lend little clarity to a meaningful analysis, the gravamen of

plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to be directed to actions taken by defendants in defense of

themselves and their clients in plaintiff’s numerous other lawsuits brought in this court. There are

no colorable allegations that defendants deprived plaintiff of due process or otherwise subverted

the judicial process. Defendants’ reliance on other decisions issued by duly authorized courts

does not a First Amendment claim for plaintiff make.1 In the context of his other filings,

plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit appears at best to reflect an unwillingness to accept the

outcome of prior, full and fair proceedings, and at worst a form of harassment directed at those

with whom he disagrees. Neither basis justifies the present filing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is stayed pending

resolution of the motions to dismiss; all hearing dates are vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01157-MCE -KJM Document 26 Filed 10/27/05 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

3

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)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within

ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

spittal.57

Case 2:05-cv-01157-MCE -KJM Document 26 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 3