Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02539/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02539-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LONNIE PAHL CUMMINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAMALA HARRIS, 

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02539-BLF 

ORDER VACATING MOTION 

HEARING; GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS BY SUPERIOR COURT

[Re: ECF 30]

This is a civil rights action wherein pro se plaintiff Lonnie Pahl Cummings challenges the 

constitutionality of a state law requiring the posting of bail in order to challenge a traffic ticket via 

a special procedure known as a “trial by declaration.” On October 27, 2014, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend, noting that the Complaint identified the 

“Defendant(s)” as “Kamala Harris, Attorney General” at the address “Santa Clara County Superior 

Court,” and that it was not clear who Plaintiff actually intended to sue. See Order Granting Mot.to 

Dismiss at 4, ECF 24. Plaintiff promptly filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF 29, and 

motion practice ensued. 

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for 

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by the Santa Clara County Superior Court (“Superior 

Court”) on December 5, 2014. Superior Court Mot., ECF 30. The Court finds this matter 

appropriate for submission without oral argument and accordingly VACATES the April 2, 2015 

hearing date on this motion. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

The Superior Court makes a number of arguments in support of dismissal, including that 

Plaintiff does not appear to be suing the Superior Court in his FAC, that his claims are implausibly 

pled, and that the Superior Court is both immune from suit and not able to be sued under 42 

Case 5:14-cv-02539-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S.C. § 1983. See generally Superior Court Mot. Just as he failed to respond to the Superior 

Court’s first motion to dismiss the original complaint, Plaintiff has also not responded to the 

present motion.1 That, alone, is sufficient reason to grant the Superior Court’s motion. See San 

Diego Puppy, Inc. v. City of San Diego, No. 13-CV-2783-BTM-DHB, 2014 WL 4546390, at *4 

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2014) (collecting cases dismissing claims where opposing party fails to 

respond to moving party’s arguments). 

There is, however, a more obvious resolution to the present motion: Plaintiff in his FAC 

appears to have dropped any claims against the Superior Court. See Superior Court Mot. 6. 

Although there may be some understandable confusion caused by the identification of 

“Defendant(s)” in the allegations, FAC ¶ 1(b) (emphasis added), the FAC clearly identifies only

“Kamala Harris, Attorney General, Official Capacity Only,” as the named defendant in this action, 

id.; see also id. at pg. 1 (caption). The Court therefore construes the FAC to be asserting claims 

solely against Kamala Harris, and not against the Superior Court. As such, the Superior Court 

shall be dismissed as a defendant from this action.2

For the foregoing reasons, the Santa Clara County Superior Court’s Motion to Dismiss is 

GRANTED, and the Superior Court is dismissed from this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1 At the October 16, 2014 hearing on the Superior Court’s first motion, Plaintiff indicated that he 

was not aware he was required to respond. The Court notified Plaintiff then that if he did not 

respond to a motion, the motion may be decided against him.

2

In any event, as the Court noted in its prior order, the Superior Court is not a “person” for 

purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is furthermore likely immune from suit under the Eleventh 

Amendment. Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss at 4, 7. 

Case 5:14-cv-02539-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 2