Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00459/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00459-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SMILEY J. HARRIS,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-0459 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND 

HOUSING AGENCY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Smiley J. Harris filed this action on January 23, 2007, and also filed a

request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for preliminary

injunction. On April 2, 2007, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging nine causes

of action.

On April 17, 2007, the court issued a 24-page order dismissing the first amended

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim and lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, and denying the IFP request and the motion for preliminary injunction. 

The dismissal was with leave to amend, and the court provided detailed instructions

regarding amendment.

On May 15, 2007, plaintiff filed the second amended complaint, alleging twelve

causes of action, and also filed a second motion for preliminary injunction. While plaintiff 

followed the court’s instructions to some extent, he did not eliminate the defendants and

claims that had previously been dismissed with prejudice.

Case 4:07-cv-00459-PJH Document 20 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

On May 30, 2007, the court issued a 17-page order dismissing the second amended

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and denying the motion for preliminary

injunction. In the order, the court went through the second amended complaint claim by

claim, and defendant by defendant, and clearly set forth what plaintiff was required to

allege in any further amended complaint. 

On June 29, 2007, plaintiff filed the third amended complaint. The third amended

complaint differs little from the second amended complaint. In particular, despite the

court’s clear and explicit dismissal with prejudice of certain claims and defendants, plaintiff

re-alleged nearly every claim as before, and even added new defendants. The third

amended complaint is DISMISSED, for the reasons stated in the April 17, 2007, and May

30, 2007, orders.

In the conclusion to the May 30, 2007, order, the court stated that the third amended

complaint 

may allege only Fourth Amendment claims of false arrest and/or false

imprisonment, and or claims of malicious prosecution, or Fourteenth

Amendment claims of seizure of property without due process, in connection

with the incident on June 14, 2005, against Lake County, the [Lake County]

Supervisors, Sheriff Mitchell, and Sheriff’s Deputies McMahon and Macedo. 

No other claims or defendants may be added unless plaintiff first obtains

leave of court.

May 30, 2007, Order, at 16-17.

The court repeats that instruction here. The court will give plaintiff one more

opportunity to file an amended complaint, as follows.

1. The fourth amended complaint shall be filed no later than July 20, 2007. 

2. Unless plaintiff first obtains leave of court, the only defendants that may be

named are Lake County, the Lake County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Mitchell, Officer

McMahon, and Officer Macedo. Plaintiff may not allege any claims against the California

Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Barry Sedlik, the California Department of

Motor Vehicles, George Valverde, the California Highway Patrol, Dwight Helmick, or T.

McCanless. 

3. Unless plaintiff first obtains leave of court, the only claims that may be alleged

Case 4:07-cv-00459-PJH Document 20 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

3

are Fourth Amendment claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious

prosecution, and a Fourteenth Amendment claim of deprivation of property without due

process, in connection with the June 14, 2005, incident. Plaintiff may not allege any claims

based on the February 23, 2005, incident; may not allege any claims based on the Fifth,

Ninth, or Tenth Amendments; and may not allege any claims based on the 1849 version of

the California Constitution.

4. Plaintiff may allege only the facts pertinent to the June 14, 2005, incident. In

addition, plaintiff may not allege facts relating to traffic stops, citations, vehicle

impoundment, arrests, imprisonment, or court hearings relating to incidents that occurred

prior to January 23, 2005.

5. As explained in detail in the April 17, 2005, and May 30, 2005, orders, plaintiff

may allege only non-frivolous facts and claims. In particular, the fourth amended complaint

shall not contain allegations regarding defendants’ failure to understand, recognize, or

accept the legal distinctions between “persons” and “citizens” or the law relating to

“citizens;” allegations regarding defendants’ failure to understand, recognize, or accept the

“non-contractual forms of identification carried by citizens;” or allegations regarding

violations of plaintiff’s rights under the “1783 Treaty of Peace.” 

 6. Failure to amend the complaint in accordance with the instructions in this

order and the court’s previous orders will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00459-PJH Document 20 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3