Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02200/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 05-02200 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DONG THANH VO,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-02200 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[re: docket no. 23]

Defendant San Jose Police Department (“SJPD”) moves to dismiss the complaint filed by

Plaintiff Dong Thanh Vo. The Court heard oral argument on January 12, 2007. For the reasons

discussed below, the Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on May 31, 2005, naming defendants SJPD, Delta

Towing, Inc., and the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California. Plaintiff alleges

that his vehicle was improperly impounded by the SJPD; he requests relief in the form of the

release of his vehicle and compensation for “suffering and/or unspecific damage(s).” 

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 27 Filed 01/12/07 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

27

28

2

 The Court has considered the papers untimely filed by Plaintiff. However, the Court

directs Plaintiff that he must abide by the local rules in subsequent briefing. Civ. L.R. 7-3

requires that opposition be filed no later than 21 days before the hearing date.

2

Case No. C 05-02200 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

On October 19, 2005, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s first application to

proceed in forma pauperis, concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. On March

1, 2006, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma

pauperis, again concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court instructed

Plaintiff that it would not “grant any future application to proceed in forma pauperis if Plaintiff

has not amended his complaint such that it states a non-frivolous claim over which this Court has

jurisdiction.” March 1, 2006 Order 2. 

On September 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On October 3, 2006,

Plaintiff filed an amendment to this amended complaint. On October 25, 2006, SJPD moved to

dismiss the action against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion on January 12, 2007,

the same day that oral argument occurred.2 

II. DISCUSSION

The amended complaint does not state a discernible legal claim against the SJPD. It

appears that the dispute stems from the impounding of Plaintiff’s vehicle, but Plaintiff does not

indicate what actions form the basis of his complaint against the SJPD. Nor does Plaintiff

identify a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; the parties are not diverse, and the

complaint does not identify a federal statute under which Plaintiff brings suit. Accordingly, the

Court will dismiss the complaint. 

Defendant argues in its opposition that, even if Plaintiff were to bring an action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) would bar such an

action because it does not involve a municipal policy or custom. However, in the absence of any

reference in the complaint to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court will not assume that any such

allegation would or would not claim the existence of an offensive municipal policy or custom. 

Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that amendment of the complaint would be futile, and it

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 27 Filed 01/12/07 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

27

28

3

Case No. C 05-02200 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. As Defendant suggests in its opposition, any

amended complaint should name the proper governmental unit as the defendant. In addition, the

Court strongly advises Plaintiff to seek legal advice, particularly a free consultation with the

Santa Clara County Bar Association.

III. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is

GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff should file any amended complaint on or before

February 11, 2007.

DATED: January 12, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 27 Filed 01/12/07 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

27

28

4

Case No. C 05-02200 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Nkia Desiree Richardson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov, Eileen.Aparicio@sanjoseca.gov 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

Dong Thanh Vo

Post Office Box 24

San Jose, CA 95103

Case 5:05-cv-02200-JF Document 27 Filed 01/12/07 Page 4 of 4