Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04616/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04616-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY E. KEATHLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Nos. C 06-04616, 06-05471 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH PREJUDICE AND DENYING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

On July 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint and a request to proceed in forma pauperis in this

Court (Case No. 06-04616). On September 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a second complaint and request to

proceed in forma pauperis (Case No. 06-05471). On September 25, 2006, the Court held a telephone

conference with plaintiff, in an attempt to clarify the nature of his claims in both cases. Having failed

to do so, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaints, and consolidated his two cases. The Court

instructed plaintiff as to the pleading standards for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and advised plaintiff

to make sure to illustrate how the facts support each claim. The Court ordered plaintiff to file his

amended complaint, if any, on or before November 17, 2006, and instructed that no further amendments

would be allowed.

Plaintiff has subsequently filed – on November 7, 9, and 15, 2006 – three packets of

miscellaneous materials with the Court. The Court construes these submissions as an attempt by

plaintiff to amend his complaints and clarify the nature of his claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8, a complaint must include: 1) a short and plain statement of the court's jurisdiction, 2) a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and 3) a demand for

judgment for the relief the plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff has not met the basic requirements of Rule 8 in any

Case 3:06-cv-04616-SI Document 15 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

of the papers he has filed with the Court, as the Court continues to be unable to understand the basis for

his claims. The September 25, 2006 phone call with plaintiff, and the papers recently submitted by

plaintiff, have only further obfuscated his claims. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s

complaints for failure to comply with Rule 8. As previously advised, the Court will not grant plaintiff

leave to amend. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 2).

As the Court is dismissing plaintiff’s complaints without leave to amend, his case will be closed,

and he should not file anything further with the Court. The materials plaintiff recently sent to the

Court will be returned to him at his current address of record, as many of the materials appear to be

originals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2006 _________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04616-SI Document 15 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2