Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01851/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01851-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS F. DOWLING, SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-1851 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FEDERAL

CLAIMS; DECLINING TO EXERCISE

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER

STATE LAW CLAIMS; REMANDING

ACTION

(Docket Nos. 4, 8)

Before the Court is defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, filed May 27, 2005 and

noticed for hearing July 1, 2005. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3(a), plaintiff Curtis F. Dowling,

Sr. (“Dowling”) was required to file his opposition no later than June 10, 2005. To date, no

opposition has been filed. By order issued June 20, 2005, the July 1, 2005 hearing on the

motion to dismiss has been VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to

dismiss the federal claims is hereby GRANTED, and the remaining state law claims are

REMANDED to the California Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco:

1. The motion to dismiss Dowling’s federal claim for deprivation of due process in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is GRANTED, and said claim is DISMISSED with prejudice, as the

mere threat of disciplinary action or harm to reputation does not constitute actionable

Case 3:05-cv-01851-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 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

2

interference with property or liberty rights protected by the Due Process Clause. See, e.g.,

Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of due process

claim where plaintiff conceded “no charges were brought against him, and no disciplinary

action was ever taken”). To the extent Dowling’s due process claim is based on

defendants’ threat to evict him from his residence, he likewise has failed to state a claim, as

there is no allegation that Dowling was evicted. See Holt Cargo Systems, Inc. v. Delaware

River Port Authority, 20 F. Supp. 2d 803 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (finding “mere threat” of eviction

not actionable under § 1983); cf. Dooley v. Reiss, 736 F.2d 1392, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984)

(finding no § 1983 claim stated based on unsuccessful attempt by defendants to deprive

plaintiff of constitutional rights).

2. The motion to dismiss Dowling’s federal claim for deprivation of equal protection

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is GRANTED, and said claim is DISMISSED with prejudice,

as Dowling cannot base a § 1983 claim on a mere threat to interfere with his constitutional

rights. See, e.g., Dooley v. Reiss, 736 F.2d at 1394-95 (finding no § 1983 claim stated

based on unsuccessful attempt by defendants to deprive plaintiff of constitutional rights);

see also Reichenberger v. Pritchard, 660 F.2d 280, 287 (7th Cir. 1981) (affirming dismissal

of claim for conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of equal protection based on unsuccessful

attempt to deprive plaintiffs of constitutional rights).

3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state

law claims and REMANDS said claims to the Superior Court for the City and County of San

Francisco. See Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“[I]n

the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of

factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine -- judicial economy,

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:05-cv-01851-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 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

3

convenience, fairness, and comity -- will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over

the remaining state-law claims.”)

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01851-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/22/05 Page 3 of 3