Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00090/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00090-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J.F. Stivens
Defendant
Michael K. Verble
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 In addition to plaintiff’s March 25, 2010 filing, the court has received dozens of

emails – under various titles, including a purported “amended complaint” – sent by plaintiff to

the court’s “proposed order” inbox. Since none of these emails have been duly filed with the

clerk of the court, however, the court has been unable to construe them as properly filed

documents in the case, let alone take action upon them (though any action would have been

impossible, as the emails are incomprehensible). Thus, the court has taken action on the only

document appropriately filed in the court’s docket. In view of the ruling herein, plaintiff is

furthermore instructed to refrain from sending any additional emails to the court’s proposed

order inbox. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL K. VERBLE,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-0090 PJH

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

J.F. STIVENS, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff filed his original complaint and request to proceed in forma pauperis on

January 7, 2010. After requesting initial clarification from plaintiff regarding the nature of

his complaint and request, this court entered an order sua sponte dismissing plaintiff's

complaint on March 3, 2010, because it was impossible to discern from plaintiff's complaint

the actual legal theories under which he sought relief, as required by Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). Plaintiff was advised to file an amended complaint

complying with FRCP 8 no later than April 1, 2010 or the case would be dismissed with

prejudice. 

On March 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a one page long letter, containing titles relating to

“Venue” and “Petition to proceed in Forma Pauperous [sic],” the substance of which is

impossible to decipher.1

 As the filing was made subsequent to the court’s March 3 order,

Case 4:10-cv-00090-PJH Document 11 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
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

and within the time frame contemplated by the court for the filing of an amended complaint,

the court construes plaintiff’s March 25, 2010 filing as a timely filed amended complaint. 

Having reviewed this amended complaint, however, the court concludes that plaintiff

has failed to amend his complaint as instructed. Specifically, plaintiff has failed to allege a

basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction; allege separate causes of action; allege a

violation of federal statutory or constitutional law as a basis for each cause of action; and

allege facts showing each defendant's personal involvement in the wrongful act alleged in

each cause of action, as well as plaintiff's harm or injury. 

 Based on the foregoing, the court has considered the five factors set forth in Malone

v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and has determined that

notwithstanding the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the

court's need to manage its docket and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the

instant litigation require dismissal of this action. In view of plaintiff's lack of a meaningful

response to this court's prior order, the court finds there is no appropriate less drastic

sanction. 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00090-PJH Document 11 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2