Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04786/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04786-1/pdf.json

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

Although plaintiff did not file a separate motion seeking a temporary restraining

order, plaintiff, at the time she filed her complaint, informed the Clerk of the Court that her

complaint was a request for a temporary restraining order.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE L. HALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-4786 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Before the Court is a one-page document, titled “Complaint and Civil Complaint for

Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Injunctive Relief,” filed

November 22, 2005 by plaintiff Julie L. Hall against a number of defendants, all of whom

are government entities and elected officials. By order filed November 22, 2005, the Court

denied plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order,1

 on the ground plaintiff failed to

allege any facts in her complaint, including facts suggesting a basis for federal jurisdiction,

and because plaintiff failed to offer any evidence in support of her request for interim relief.

Also before the Court is a 17-page document, filed later in the day on November 22,

2005, which bears a lengthy title beginning with “Ex Parte Application for a[n] Order

Restraining the City and County of California [sic], the State of California from Further

Gross Negligence,” and in which plaintiff has included what appear to be intended as

Case 3:05-cv-04786-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 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

2

The 17-page document includes references to such events as the death of a dog, a

child in plaintiff’s neighborhood being struck by a vehicle, plaintiff being struck by her

vehicle after a brake failed, and an immigrant having parked a vehicle on the property of

plaintiff’s neighbor.

2

factual allegations in support of her claim(s). The Clerk of the Court filed said document,

construing it as an amended complaint.

Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to set forth

“a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends.” 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Here, as noted, plaintiff’s initial one-page complaint fails to

include any facts, let alone a statement of the grounds upon which this Court may assert

jurisdiction. Further, to the extent plaintiff intends her subsequently filed 17-page document

to be an amended complaint, such document likewise fails to comply with Rule 8(a)(1). 

Although that document includes references to certain federal statutes, plaintiff fails to state

what facts, if any, support a claim under any federal statute.2 Consequently, plaintiff’s

complaint and amended complaint are subject to dismissal sua sponte. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks

jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint are hereby DISMISSED,

for lack of jurisdiction, and, to the extent the amended complaint seeks a restraining order,

such request is DENIED.

Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to file, no later than December 19, 2005, a

pleading titled Second Amended Complaint. Any such pleading must comply with Rule

8(a). If plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint within the time provided, the

Court will dismiss the action, without further leave to amend, for lack of jurisdiction, and

without prejudice to plaintiff’s re-filing her claims in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04786-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2