Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01655/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01655-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ALFRED PANZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING & URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01655-MEJ 

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND

On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 96-page Complaint against at least 13 defendants, 

“seeking declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief . . . as well as exemplary damages for 

their willful, malicious, fraudulent, grossly reckless, negligent acts, exacted on [him].” Compl., 

Dkt. No. 1. He stated that he brought this action “pursuant to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as 

amended; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to our United States 

Constitution; The State of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959; the Americans With 

Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended, The Plain Language Act of 2010 as its original language and 

added ‘guidance,’ suggests; and Title 42- The Public Health and Welfare Code§ 1983, ‘Civil 

action for deprivation of rights,’ as well as related federal and California laws.” 

On April 24, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, but 

dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend, finding that he failed to identify each defendant he 

proposes to hold liable for each claim and failed to allege facts showing what each defendant did 

or failed to do in relation to each of those claims. Dkt. No. 8. The Court informed Plaintiff that he 

may properly join as many claims as he has against an opposing party in a single complaint, but

unrelated claims against different defendants must be alleged in separate complaints. The Court 

also informed Plaintiff that the allegations in his Complaint were so lengthy, repetitive, and 

Case 3:15-cv-01655-MEJ Document 12 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

unnecessarily detailed that it could not readily determine all of the injuries for which each 

defendant is allegedly liable. The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that

linked each defendant to the alleged injury, or injuries, for which that defendant is alleged to be 

responsible, and directed him to provide a concise statement identifying each defendant and the 

specific action or actions the defendant took, or failed to take, that allegedly caused his injuries. 

On May 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. Rather than complying with the 

Court’s directives, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was longer than his original Complaint and 

named additional Defendants. Dkt. No. 9. The Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with 

leave to file a second amended complaint, but warned him that the case would be dismissed with 

prejudice if he failed to comply with the Court’s previous instructions. Dkt. No. 10. 

On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC is 127 

pages long and appears to name at least 27, but possibly 29, Defendants. As with his initial and 

amended complaints, Plaintiff continues to bring multiple claims against seemingly unrelated 

parties and has failed to cure the deficiencies the Court previously identified. 

A plaintiff may properly join as many claims as he has against an opposing party in a 

single complaint (Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a)), but unrelated claims against different defendants must be 

alleged in separate complaints. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Parties may 

be joined as defendants only if “there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the 

alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 

series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants 

will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). As a practical matter, this means that claims 

involving different parties cannot be joined together in one complaint if the facts giving rise to the 

claims are not factually related in some way—that is, if there is not “similarity in the factual 

background.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). General allegations are 

not sufficient to constitute similarity when the specifics are different. Id. The court, on its own 

initiative, may dismiss misjoined parties from an action, and any claim against a misjoined party 

may be severed and proceeded with separately. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

Despite previous instructions from the Court, Plaintiff fails to provide a simple, concise, 

Case 3:15-cv-01655-MEJ Document 12 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

narrative that sets forth all of the injuries attributed to each individual defendant. Although the 

Court has twice granted leave to amend and advised Plaintiff that unrelated claims against 

different defendants must be alleged in separate complaints, Plaintiff has more than doubled the 

number of Defendants and added over 30 pages to his allegations. This is now the third time the 

Court has addressed these pleading deficiencies, and the Court previously advised Plaintiff that 

failure to file a Second Amended Complaint that complied with the Court’s instructions “shall 

result in dismissal of this case without leave to amend.” Dkt. No. 10 at 3. Accordingly, because 

Plaintiff has continually failed to comply with the Court’s orders, as well as the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01655-MEJ Document 12 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ALFRED PANZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING & URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01655-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 6/29/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

John Alfred Panzer

1797 Shattuck Avenue

Apt #312

Berkeley, CA 94709 

Dated: 6/29/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 3:15-cv-01655-MEJ Document 12 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 4