Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01050/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01050-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Telucci
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

RICHARD TELUCCI, No. 830-0, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

UNKNOWN NAMED, Supervising

Deputy San Francisco County Public

Defender,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-1050 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a former prisoner now civilly committed to the custody of the

California Department of State Hospitals after a San Francisco County Superior

Court jury found him to be a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent

Predators Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. (SVPA), filed a pro se

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging irrational mental health assessments

in the course of his civil commitment proceedings due to the Supervising Deputy

San Francisco County Public Defender’s failure to adequately train and supervise

plaintiff’s deputy public defender to effectively challenge such irrational

assessments. 

Per order filed on April 15, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

with leave to amend to name as defendant San Francisco Public Defender Jeff

Adachi and allege, if possible, facts showing a deliberate pattern and policy of

refusing to train and prepare deputy public defenders for civil commitment cases

Case 3:15-cv-01050-CRB Document 9 Filed 06/26/15 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

under SVPA. See Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 471 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc). Plaintiff was advised that an isolated assignment of an

inexperienced or poorly trained lawyer will not do. Plaintiff must set forth facts

sufficient to state a claim of “‘deliberate indifference to constitutional rights’ in

the failure to train lawyers to represent clients [facing civil commitment

proceedings under SVPA].” Id. The court further advised plaintiff that

“[f]ailure to file a proper amended complaint within [28 days of this order] will

result in the dismissal of this action.” Apr. 15, 2015 Oder (dkt. #6) at 4.

Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to amend, which the court

granted: “Plaintiff shall file a FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by no later than

June 12, 2015.” May 5, 2015 Order (dkt. #8) at 1.

Nearly two weeks have passed since plaintiff’s filing deadline expired and

plaintiff still has not filed a First Amended Complaint or sought a further

extension of time to do so. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The clerk is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and

close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.15\Telucci, R.15-1050.dismissal.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-01050-CRB Document 9 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 2