Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00201/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00201-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 06-00201 JF 

ORDER STRIKING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING THE AUGUST 11, 2006 HEARING

DATE

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 08/02/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN R. BEAN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-00201 JF

ORDER1 STRIKING THE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

VACATING THE AUGUST 11, 2006

HEARING DATE

[re: docket no. 27]

Defendant County of Monterey Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) moves to

dismiss Plaintiff John R. Bean’s (“Bean”) pro se first amended complaint (“FAC”) for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). The Court has considered this matter without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will strike Bean’s amended complaint as

inconsistent with the Court’s Order dated June 7, 2006 (“the June 7 Order”) and vacate the

August 11, 2006 hearing date.

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 43 Filed 08/02/06 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 06-00201 JF

ORDER STRIKING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING THE AUGUST 11, 2006 HEARING

DATE

(JFEX1)

Bean filed his original complaint on January 11, 2006. On March 9, 2006, the Sheriff’s

Department filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. In response to the motion to

dismiss, Bean filed his FAC. The FAC was never served to the Sheriff’s Department because

Bean believed that the Court would serve it based on his in forma pauperis status. Although the

FAC was not at issue because it had not been served to the Sheriff’s Department, the Court

nonetheless expressly addressed the FAC during oral argument on June 2, 2006 and in the June 7

Order. The June 7 Order indicated that Bean may file an amended complaint that addresses the

insufficiencies in his complaint, and that he should not serve the insufficient FAC on the

Sheriff’s Department. Despite the Court’s instructions, Bean served the belated FAC on the

Sheriff’s Department.

The Sheriff’s Department now moves to dismiss the FAC. In response, Bean has filed a

document that is more like a second amended complaint than an opposition. Bean’s opposition

does not address any of the arguments made by the Sheriff’s Department in its motion to dismiss. 

Instead, Bean asserts violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Fourteenth

Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and civil rights violation. The opposition does not identify

the Sheriff’s Department as a defendant, but rather names as defendants two of the Sheriff’s

deputies who arrested Bean–M. Shapiro and J. Villasenor–and Jayne Speizer, who is associated

with the Monterey County Herald newspaper. Bean did not serve the opposition on any of the

newly named parties. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court will strike the FAC and vacate the August 11, 2006

hearing date. Bean may file a second amended complaint that sets forth all of his claims for

relief and addresses the deficiencies set forth in the June 7 Order. If Bean adds additional

defendants to the instant action, he must serve them with the amended complaint. 

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 43 Filed 08/02/06 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 06-00201 JF

ORDER STRIKING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING THE AUGUST 11, 2006 HEARING

DATE

(JFEX1)

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint is STRICKEN as inconsistent with the Court’s order dated June 7, 2006. 

The hearing set for August 11, 2006 is vacated. Any amended complaint shall be filed and

served within twenty (20) days after service of this order.

DATED: August 2, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 43 Filed 08/02/06 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 06-00201 JF

ORDER STRIKING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING THE AUGUST 11, 2006 HEARING

DATE

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

John Richard Bean WilsonrreR@netscape.net 

Traci A. Kirkbride kirkbrideta@co.monterey.ca.us, 

edwards-jamesg@co.monterey.ca.us; zazuetac@co.monterey.ca.us 

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 43 Filed 08/02/06 Page 4 of 4