Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01851/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01851-2/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 RE: PLAINTIFF’S

CORRESPONDENCE TO COURT

On June 22, 2005, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss

the federal claims asserted by plaintiff Curtis F. Dowling, Sr. (“Dowling”), declining to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and remanding the

action to state court. Dowling had not filed opposition to the motion.

Thereafter, on June 23, 2005, the Court received correspondence from Dowling’s

counsel, in which Dowling asks the Court to vacate its June 22, 2005 order and allow him

to file an amended complaint. The following day, June 24, 2005, Dowling filed his

Amended Complaint.

Dowling is hereby ADVISED that requests for relief are to be made by proper

motion, not by letter. See Civil L.R. 7-1. As no motion has been filed, either pursuant to

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or otherwise, the Court will not consider

Case 3:05-cv-01851-MMC Document 14 Filed 06/24/05 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 requests for relief raised in Dowling’s correspondence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01851-MMC Document 14 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2