Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06039/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06039-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 39:409 Postal Service

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEVORAH GENEVA ST. JEROME WHITE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CAPITOLA POST OFFICE, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND

[re: docket no. 19, 38, 47]

Defendant Public Defender’s Office and defendants Justice Richard McAdams of the

California Court of Appeal, and Judges Jeff Almquist, Samuel S. Stevens, and Irwin H. Joseph of

the Santa Cruz Superior Court (collectively, “State Judicial Defendants”) move to dismiss the

complaint. Defendant Commission on Judicial Performance joins the State Judicial Defendants’

motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2006, Plaintiff Devorah Geneva St. Jerome White filed a complaint in

Santa Cruz Superior Court. Plaintiff acts pro se. Plaintiff appears to allege that a number of

Case 5:06-cv-06039-JF Document 53 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 7
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

 The Complaint is filed as Exhibit A to the Notice of Removal. 

3

 Plaintiff identifies the twenty six defendants as follows: The Capitola Post Office; U.S.

Postal Service & Inspection; U.S. Postal Service; U.S. Postal Center; U.S. Postal Service

Consumer Affairs; Capitola Police Dept.; City of Capitola; District Attorney’s Office; Public

Defender’s Office; City of Santa Cruz; Dominican Hospital; Dept. of Highway Patrol; Dept. of

Justice; Commission of Judicial Performance; California Bar Association - Office of Chief Trial

Counsel; Rick Arroyo (Postmaster); Tina Brown (Postal Carrier); Howard Quinn (Postal

Inspector); Q.P. Howard (Postal Inspector); Officer Mike Gonzales (Police Officer); Bob Lee

(District Attorney); Richard McAdams (Judge); Jeff Almquist (Judge); Judge Stevens (Judge);

Irvin H. Joseph (Judge); Marla Lytle (“Fatal Attraction” & “Henchperson”).

The complaint also lists “Angela (Sullivan) Crowe (‘Homewrecker’ & ‘Femme Fatale’)”

as a “material witness.” Complaint 10. 

4

 For example, paragraph 23 of the complaint reads:

23. Jeff Almquist (Judge) 4 counts of contempt # M19863 (“A wink and a nod”)

701 Ocean St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Abuses of power. Possibility of accepting bribes. Conspiracy. Obstruction of

Justice. Discrimination. Intimidation. Negligence. (He had the power to drop

the bogus counts, & to initiate an investigation of my perpetrators & conspirators,

etc.). Defamation. Disregarded my Declaration of Response. Denied me

impartial fair hearings. Rude improper treatment of me (insinuating that I am a

mental case, along with the D.A.). Expressions of bias. Allowing my perpetrators

& conspirators with positions of power or connections to power to [sic] influence

his Judicial decision making. Conflict of interest. “Kangaroo Courts” (approx. 2

yrs.) based upon false reports, false allegations, railroad perjury, false documents,

false ILLEGAL restraining order, & bogus counts. Denied impartial proper

2

Case No. C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC1)

individuals, organizations, and government agencies located in Capitola, California conspired to

violate her civil rights. Plaintiff describes the alleged activity as “violation of civil rights,

violation of privacy, discrimination, defamation - incurring personal injury & damage to

Plaintiff.” Complaint 1.2 The complaint names twenty-six defendants including the Capitola

Post Office, other divisions of the United States Postal Service, the Cities of Capitola and Santa

Cruz, the District Attorney’s and Public Defender’s Offices, the Dominican Hospital, and a

number of individuals.3 The complaint includes nine federal defendants (“the Federal

Defendants”). The complaint consists primarily of a numbered list of the defendants with a

paragraph or two under each defendant providing conclusory allegations of their alleged

involvement in the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s legal rights.4 The complaint also includes a

Case 5:06-cv-06039-JF Document 53 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 7
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

defense (D.A. & Judge bribed Public Defenders Office to not defend me properly

or impartially). Sabotaged Jury Trials. Violation of Civil Rights. (2003-2005).

5

 It appears that the Federal Defendants unintentionally may have cropped an additional

term from the bottom of page ten of the complaint when copying it as an exhibit to the notice of

removal. 

6

 This amount consists of $50,000,000 (out-of-court settlement) and $70,000,000 (incourt restitution).

3

Case No. C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC1)

section entitled “Some legal terms applicable to my Civil Rights Crisis.” Complaint 10. These

terms are: “Violation of Civil Rights; Damages; Duress, Menace, Fraud, Undue Influence &

Mistake; Harrassment [sic]; Libel & Slander (& Perjury); Malicious Prosecution & Abuse of

Process; Mental Suffering & Emotional Distress; Negligence; Medical Malpractice; Violation of

Privacy; Invasion of Privacy; Conflicts of Interest; Obstruction of Justice!” Id.5 The complaint

seeks damages of $120,000,000.6

On September 28, 2006, the Federal Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant

to 39 U.S.C. § 409(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1339, 1441(a), and 2679(d)(2). On October 5, 2006, the

Federal Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and, alternatively, for more definite

statement (“Federal Defendants motion”). On October 31, 2006, Defendants City of Santa Cruz,

City of Capitola, Capitola Police Department, and Officer Mark Gonzalez (“City Defendants”)

moved to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff filed a number of letters in apparent opposition to the

motions, but did not file a formal opposition. The Court heard oral argument on the City

Defendants and Federal Defendants’ motions on December 22, 2006. Plaintiff did not appear at

oral argument. The Court granted the motions without leave to amend on December 22, 2006. 

On November 1, 2006, the State Judicial Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. 

State Judicial Defendants assert that judicial immunity bars all of Plaintiff’s claims, that the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, and that in addition Plaintiff’s state law claims are barred

because the complaint does not allege compliance with the claim filing requirements of the

California Tort Claims Act. On December 12, 2006, the Commission on Judicial Performance

joined the motion. On January 5, 2007, the Court ordered that the matter would be taken under

Case 5:06-cv-06039-JF Document 53 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 7
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

7

 The motion is filed in the name of Defendants Biggam, Christensen, and Minsloff who

believe themselves to be sued as the “Public Defender’s Office.” For the purposes of this

motion, the Court will refer to these Defendants as the Public Defender’s Office.

4

Case No. C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC1)

submission without oral argument, and that any opposition should be filed on or before January

12, 2007. Plaintiff filed a number of pieces of correspondence, which the Court has considered,

but did not formally oppose the motion.

On November 20, 2006, Defendant Public Defender’s Office7 filed a motion to dismiss

the complaint. The Public Defender’s Office asserts that Plaintiff has not alleged a compensable

injury, that the Wiley/Coscia rule applies to all claims purportedly alleged in the Complaint, and

that the Complaint is unintelligible. On January 5, 2007, the Court ordered that the matter would

be taken under submission without oral argument, and that any opposition should be filed on or

before January 12, 2007. Plaintiff filed a number of pieces of correspondence, which the Court

has considered, but did not formally oppose the motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King &

Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s

allegations are taken as true, and the Court must construe the complaint in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The pleading of a

pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney, and is to

be afforded the benefit of any doubt. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Karim-Panahi

v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, a pro se litigant

must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.

1995). 

III. DISCUSSION

As the Court ruled on December 22, 2006, the complaint does not comply with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that a complaint include “a short and plain

Case 5:06-cv-06039-JF Document 53 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Case No. C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC1)

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The complaint makes a

number of broad, conclusory allegations regarding a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her legal

rights, but does not provide an intelligible statement of the alleged offensive conduct and the

bases upon which Plaintiff claims relief. The complaint does not provide the defendants with

adequate notice of the allegations to prepare a defense. Accordingly, Plaintiff may not proceed

with this action as the complaint currently stands. 

The Court concludes that it should not grant leave to amend the complaint at the present

time. The complaint does not state a discernible cause of action against any of the moving

defendants, and it appears to be frivolous. The complaint does not identify any statutory or

common law rights that Plaintiff believes have been violated and does not allege any facts that

indicate that a legal wrong may have been committed by the moving defendants. Moreover, even

if such facts appeared in the complaint or if Plaintiff had identified a relevant statutory section,

the State Judicial Defendants appear to have immunity from suit and the Public Defender’s

Office has raised multiple, apparently dispositive arguments. The Court would have been

inclined to grant leave to amend if Plaintiff had filed proper opposition, but Plaintiff did not do

so. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss without leave to amend and will

enter judgment. Plaintiff may file a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60 should she wish to proceed with the present action.

Dismissal of the State Judicial Defendants, the Commission on Judicial Performance, and

the Public Defender’s Office leaves the following seven Defendants in the case: the District

Attorney’s Office, Dominican Hospital, Department of Highway Patrol, Department of Justice,

California Bar Association, Bobby Lee, and Marla Lytle. The Court has not received a copy of

the state court docket, so it does not know whether these defendants responded to the complaint

in state court, nor does it know whether these defendants have been served.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to dismiss

filed by the Public Defender’s Office and the State Judicial Defendants, as joined by the

Commission on Judicial Performance, are GRANTED without leave to amend.

Case 5:06-cv-06039-JF Document 53 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Case No. C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC1)

DATED: January 17, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06039-JF Document 53 Filed 01/17/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case No. C 06-06039 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Chinhayi J. Coleman chinhayi.j.coleman@usdoj.gov 

Paul T. Hammerness paul.hammerness@doj.ca.gov 

Mark J. Hancock mark.hancock@sdma.com, steven.wasserman@sdma.com;

marion.tate@sdma.com 

George J. Kovacevich szieber@abc-law.com 

Steven D. Wasserman steven.wasserman@sdma.com, Rhonda.Gillis@sdma.com;

sdmacalendaring@sdma.com; kara.rohe@sdma.com;

rachel.pelletier@sdma.com; eric.seidlitz@sdma.com;

marlene.adelman@sdma.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

Erik Ryan Seidlitz 

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP

Steuart Tower

1 Market Plz 8th Fl

San Francisco, CA 94105

Devorah Geneva St Jerome White

208-1/2 California Avenue

Capitola, CA 95010

Case 5:06-cv-06039-JF Document 53 Filed 01/17/07 Page 7 of 7