Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00322/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00322-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—C-05-00322 RMW

SHL/MAG

E-FILED on 7/11/05

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DOUGLAS J. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JON N. SY, STEVE HALE, JAMES A.

BAKER, MIKE MILLER, JERRY W.

BREZINA, and DOES 1 thorough 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C-05-00322 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket No. 18]

Plaintiff Douglas Williams, proceeding pro se, claims the following in his complaint against

defendants Jon Sy, Steve Hale, James A. Baker, Mike Miller, and Jerry Brezina: conspiracy to interfere

with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 241, fraudulent inducement to

contract under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, defamation under California Civil Code §§ 43-46, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). Defendants move to dismiss Williams' complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Alternatively, defendants request the court to grant their motion for a more definite statement. 

Williams neither opposed defendants' motion nor appeared at the hearing. For the reasons set forth below,

the court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss. 
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—C-05-00322 RMW

SHL/MAG 2

I. ANALYSIS

A motion to dismiss may not be granted solely because a pro se plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

See Curtis v. Bembenek, 48 F.3d 281, 287 (7th Cir. 1995); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795,

799 (9th Cir. 1991) (reasoning that plaintiff is entitled to stand on complaint). However, a pro se plaintiff's

motion may still be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the non-moving

party's claims when that party's material allegations, as set forth in its complaint, are accepted as true and

construed in the light most favorable to it. See Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Dismissal can be based on the "lack of a cognizable legal theory" or "the absence of sufficient facts alleged

under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

For the following reasons, all of Williams' claims are dismissed:

(1) Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege that defendants are state actors or were otherwise willful

participants in joint activity with the state or its agents, as necessary to sustain a civil rights

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(2) Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege that defendants acted under color of state law or were

motivated by some class-based, discriminatory animus, as necessary to sustain a claim of

conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

(3) Plaintiff's claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241 of conspiracy to interfere with rights is dismissed on

the grounds that a private citizen does not have standing to enforce criminal laws. 

(3) For the same reason, plaintiff's fraud claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is dismissed.

(4) Plaintiff's cause of action for defamation under California Civil Code §§ 43-46 is dismissed

on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to allege that defendants published visual materials or

oral statements regarding plaintiff. 

(5) Plaintiff's IIED claim is barred by the California Workers' Compensation Act because

plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that his distress occurred outside the scope of

employment with Swift Transportation Company, his former employer.

Alternatively, the court may dismiss the case against Brezina, Hale, Baker, and Sy for insufficiency

of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). "If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—C-05-00322 RMW

SHL/MAG 3

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court . . . shall dismiss the action without

prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time . . . ." Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(m). As plaintiff has not properly served Brezina, Hale, Baker, and Sy pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(e), and more than 120 days have passed since the filing of the complaint on January 24,

2005, plaintiffs' claims against these defendants may be dismissed. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall have

thirty days from the date of this order to amend his complaint and ten days thereafter to effect service on

defendants Sy, Hale, Baker, and Brezina.

DATED: 7/8/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—C-05-00322 RMW

SHL/MAG 4

Notice of this document has sent to:

Plaintiff:

Douglas J. Williams 

Post Office Box 52198 

Pacific Grove, CA 93950 

PRO SE

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Ronald J. Holland 

Todd Kenneth Boyer 

Littler Mendelson, P.C. 

650 California Street, 20th Fl. 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for

e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 7/11/05 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte