Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03493/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03493-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE CARPIAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF EMERYVILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-3493 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendants City of Emeryville, Emeryville Police Department,

Chief of Police Ken James of the Emeryville Police Department,

Captain Neal of the Emeryville Police Department, City Attorney

Michael Guina and Nancy Templeton again move to dismiss this

action. Alternatively, they request a more definite statement. 

The Court construes pro se Plaintiff Andre Carpiaux's "Tornado

Devastation and Destruction of Scaffolding Property Lien" as an

opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The matter was

submitted on the papers. Having considered the parties' papers,

the Court grants in part Defendants' motion and denies it in part.

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 1 of 10
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

BACKGROUND

On December 27, 2006, the Court granted in part Defendants'

motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint and denied it

in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed without prejudice

Plaintiff's first cause of action against Defendants Guina,

Templeton and James, but did not dismiss his first cause of action

against Defendant Neal. Plaintiff's fifth cause of action for an

injunction was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's second, third

and fourth causes of action met the bare minimum requirements of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and were not dismissed. 

Plaintiff was instructed that, if he chose to file a second amended

complaint remedying the deficiencies noted in the order, his second

amended complaint must list, under each cause of action, the

defendants against whom that cause of action is brought.

On January 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed his second amended

complaint. Unlike his first amended complaint, this two-page

complaint includes hardly any facts. The only facts alleged are as

follows:

Although the Defendant City of Emeryville claim [sic] that the

warrant was issued well before the 24 hrs lawful requirement

The City was careful in maneuvering its timing as to render

the 24 hrs requirement to be a practical joke because if I

would not have come home accidently in early afternoon I would

have never had knowledge there was "WARRANT" taped and glued

on my fence . . . 

Defendants have chased and traumatized me for over 20 years

. . . . Invasion of my Home -- under the color of law,

defendant deprived me of my right and subjected me of [sic]

duress.

Second Amended Complaint, p. 1. 

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 10
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

1

Plaintiff's opposition and all papers he has filed since then

list only Nora Davis, Ruth Atkin, Richard Kassis and Ken Bukowsky

as Defendants.

3

The complaint identifies no defendant against whom any cause

of action is brought. The caption of the complaint lists "City of

EMERYVILLE et al." as the "Defendant."1 Defendants Emeryville

Police Department, Chief of Police Ken James, Captain Neal, City

Attorney Michael Guina and Nancy Templeton do not appear anywhere

in the second amended complaint. 

The second amended complaint provides: "Repetition of the

three causes the Court already accepted is done as literal sections

of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint." Second Amended Complaint,

p. 2. It also includes two new causes of action: (1) Invasion of

privacy and consequent distress and (2) "Civil right suppression by

outrageous means" under section 1983. Id. Plaintiff did not seek

leave to file these two new claims, nor was leave granted in the

Court's December 27, 2006 order. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). A plaintiff need not set out in detail the facts

upon which he or she bases her claim; however, the plaintiff must

"give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds on which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

47 (1957); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964

(2007). 

Although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, they

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 10
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 4

must allege facts sufficient to enable a reviewing court to

conclude that a claim exists; vague and conclusory allegations of

official participation in civil rights violations are not

sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Ivey v. Board of

Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). As

the Supreme Court recently explained, "While a complaint attacked

by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual

allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of

his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65

(inner citations and alteration omitted). Rather, the allegations

in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level." Id. at 1965. All material allegations in

the complaint, "even if doubtful in fact," are assumed to be true,

id., and are construed in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.

1986). 

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended

complaint with prejudice. They argue that the second amended

complaint does not remedy the deficiencies the Court noted in its

December 27, 2006 order. Rather, as Defendants note, contrary to

this Court's order, Plaintiff does not list, under each cause of

action, the defendants against whom the cause of action is brought. 

Further, he seeks to add two new causes of action, going beyond the

scope of the Court's order allowing him to amend the deficiencies

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 4 of 10
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 5

in his first amended complaint, without leave of the Court and

without providing sufficient factual allegations to support these

causes of action. Finally, Plaintiff does not identify which three

causes of action from his first amended complaint he wishes to

continue to assert.

Local Civil Rule 10-1 provides, "Any party filing or moving to

file an amended pleading must reproduce the entire proposed

pleading and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by

reference." As the Ninth Circuit explains, "It is hornbook law

that an amended pleading supersedes the original, the latter being

treated thereafter as non-existent. Once amended, the original no

longer performs any function as a pleading and cannot be utilized

to aid a defective amendment." Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d

824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956) (citation omitted). 

The minimal facts Plaintiff provides in his second amended

complaint are not sufficient to support any cause of action,

including those that the Court previously found met the bare

minimum requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff is appearing pro se. He likely is not aware

that he cannot incorporate a prior pleading by reference. In the

interest of justice and judicial efficiency, the Court will not

make Plaintiff replead the causes of action that the Court has

already found were sufficient. It will not dismiss Plaintiff's

first cause of action against Defendant Neal and his second, third

and fourth causes of action. 

The Court, however, will dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's

first cause of action against Defendants Guina, Templeton and

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 5 of 10
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

The Court notes that Nora Davis, Ruth Atkin, Richard Kassis

and Ken Bukowsky are not Defendants in this action. The deadline

to add additional parties was January 24, 2007. If Plaintiff

wishes to bring causes of action against Nora Davis, Ruth Atkin,

Richard Kassis and Ken Bukowsky, he must notice, file and serve a

motion seeking leave to do so. 

6

James. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend his complaint

to fix the deficiencies that the Court noted in its December 27,

2006 order. He did not. Instead, he brought two additional claims

that he did not have permission to file. Those two claims are

dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff seeks to bring those two

claims or another claim that did not appear in his first amended

complaint, he must notice, file and serve a motion seeking leave to

do so. Any motion for leave to amend his complaint must be

accompanied by the proposed amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a).2 The proposed amended complaint must re-state in full all

prior causes of action that have been found cognizable and that

Plaintiff wishes to pursue, along with the proposed new causes of

action.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss

(Docket No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's

first cause of action in his first amended complaint, a section

1983 claim, brought against Defendants James, Guina and Templeton

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's "invasion of privacy and

consequent distress" and "civil right suppression by outrageous

means" causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 6 of 10
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

On March 2, 2007, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to

respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court granted

Plaintiff's request; his opposition was due on May 4, 2007. On

May 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed another request for an extension of

time, stating that he had computer problems and that he needed

several additional days to retype his opposition. On May 15, 2007,

Plaintiff filed "Tornado Devastation and Destruction of Scaffolding

Property Lien," which the Court construes as Plaintiff's

opposition. In the interest of justice, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Extension of Time (Docket No. 49) and

will not strike "Tornado Devastation and Destruction of Scaffolding

Property Lien," as Defendants request. 

Defendants' request for judicial notice (Docket No. 41)is also

GRANTED. But Plaintiff's "Motion for Ruling for a Third Cause of

Action" (Docket No. 54) is DENIED: it is not clear what relief he

is seeking. 

7

Plaintiff seeking leave to amend his complaint.3

This case will proceed with the claims that Plaintiff

sufficiently plead in his first amended complaint: his first cause

of action against Defendant Neal and his second, third and fourth

causes of action. To expedite the resolution of this case, the

Court orders as follows: 

1. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, Defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive

motion on August 23, 2007 and notice it for hearing on

September 27, 2007. The Court may vacate the hearing and decide on

the motion on the papers, due to Plaintiff's hearing disability. 

The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and

shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior

to the date his summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed

with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff. 

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 7 of 10
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 8

2. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be

filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than

September 6, 2007. Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must come forward

with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every

essential element of his claim). The Court Deputy has provided

Plaintiff with the Court's Order Providing Notice to Pro Se

Plaintiff of Requirements for Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Plaintiff is advised to read that order. 

In addition, the Court provides Plaintiff with the following

notice that the Ninth Circuit instructs should be provided in pro

se prisoner cases: 

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by

which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for

summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion

for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact --

that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would

affect the result of your case, the party who asked for

summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,

which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a

motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by

declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out

specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in

Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine

issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your

own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate,

may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted,

your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998)(en banc). 

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 8 of 10
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 9

3. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so

no later than September 13, 2007. 

4. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case.

Plaintiff comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/29/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 9 of 10
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 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE CARPIAUX,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF EMERYVILLE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-03493 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on June 29, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Andre Carpiaux

1264 Ocean Avenue

Emeryville, CA 94608

Dale L. Allen

Joshua Mark Bryan

Low, Ball & Lynch

505 Montgomery Street, 7th Flr

San Francisco, CA 94111

Dated: June 29, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-03493-CW Document 55 Filed 06/29/07 Page 10 of 10