Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00996/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00996-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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

27

28 1

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

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER RE DOCUMENT FILED BY BOUSTRED ON JUNE 14, 2006

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-00996 JF

ORDER1 RE DOCUMENT FILED BY

BOUSTRED ON JUNE 14, 2006

[re: docket no. 77]

On March 9, 2005, Plaintiff Clive Boustred (“Boustred”) filed a pro se complaint on

behalf of himself, his two minor sons (RCB and WFB), and two corporations owned by Boustred

(InfoTelesys, Inc. Nevada and Get IT Real, Inc. Nevada). On September 27, 2005, this Court

issued an order granting the motions to dismiss of four of the named Defendants. The Court held

that Boustred’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and granted

the motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Additionally, the Court granted the motions to

dismiss the claims of plaintiffs RCF/RCB, WFB, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get It Real, Inc. with

prejudice because Boustred, who is not an attorney, lacked legal capacity to assert claims on

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 81 Filed 06/27/06 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

27

28

2

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER RE DOCUMENT FILED BY BOUSTRED ON JUNE 14, 2006

(JFLC1)

behalf of these parties. On December 23, 2005, Boustred filed a First Amended Complaint

against Defendants County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, State of California, and “their

representatives, employees as listed in the complaint and John Does 1-n (where n represents the

number of Defendants).” On January 4, 2005, Boustred filed a “Second Amendment to

Complaint.” However, because Boustred did not seek leave of the Court prior to filing the

subject amendment, the Court did not consider it. On March 8, 2006, the Court issued an order

granting with leave to amend the motions to dismiss brought by several of the named defendants,

granting motions to strike claims brought by Boustred on behalf of plaintiffs RCF/RCB, WFB,

InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get It Real, and denying the motions brought by Boustred for (1) injunctive

relief, (2) speedy trial by jury, (3) to set aside dismissal of corporate and minor parties, (4) to

recognize service, and (5) for a federal investigation. The Court instructed Boustred to file an

amended complaint within ninety (90) days of service of the March 8, 2006 order.

On June 14, 2006, Boustred filed a document entitled “Refusal of trial by Judge, demand

for trial by jury; Motion to vacate void orders, 3rd Amendment to Complaint, Contract; Status

conference agenda,” which indicates that it is noticed for hearing on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. 

However, Boustred neither gave the requisite notice of 35 days, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2,

nor calendared the motion with chambers as required by this Court’s standing order. Among

other things, the Court does not hear civil motions or status conferences on Wednesdays.

Accordingly, the hearing is ordered off calendar without prejudice. 

To the extent that the document Boustred filed on June 14, 2006 is intended as a motion

to reconsider this Court’s order dated March 8, 2006, Boustred also has failed to comply with the

Civil Local Rule 7-9, which sets forth the requirements for seeking leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. To the extent that this document is intended to be an amended complaint,

Defendants may file appropriate pleadings within the time allowed following service of the

document upon them. Although Boustred correctly points out that wide latitude is afforded to

pro se litigants, such latitude is not unbounded. Boustred must at least attempt to comply with

applicable statutes and Rules of Court, and his repeated failure to do so will not be tolerated

indefinitely.

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 81 Filed 06/27/06 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

27

28

3

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER RE DOCUMENT FILED BY BOUSTRED ON JUNE 14, 2006

(JFLC1)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 27, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 81 Filed 06/27/06 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

27

28

4

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER RE DOCUMENT FILED BY BOUSTRED ON JUNE 14, 2006

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

John S. Burton jburton@bvsllp.com, srh@bvsllp.com

Frank Gooch, III fgooch@grlawyers.com, eregalado@grlawyers.com;

rwebster@grlawyers.com

Jason Michael Heath Jason.Heath@co.santa-cruz.ca.us

Dana Maureen McRae dana.mcrae@co.santa-cruz.ca.us,

Timothy James Schmal, Esq TSchmal@bvsllp.com, jpl@bvsllp.com

Natalie P. Vance nvance@klinedinstlaw.com,

jbrelsford@klinedinstlaw.com; lwelch@klinedinstlaw.com

Clive Frank Boustred

210 Suncrest Drive

Soquel, CA 95073

Gregory M Guth

Kllinedinst PC

1107 9th Street

Suite 680

Sacramento, CA 95814

Michael A. Miller

Burton Volkmann & Schmal, LLP

133 Mission Street

Suite 102

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Frank Gooch, III

Gilchrist & Rutter Professional Corp.

1299 Ocean Avenue

Suite 900

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Jason Michael Heath

Office of the County Counsel

701 Ocean Street, Room 505

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 81 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 4