Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00402/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00402-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denise Marie Moss
Defendant
Leonard D. Ross
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD D. ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENISE MARIE MOSS,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-00402-SI 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING THE ACTION

Re: Dkt. No. 6

On January 17, 2020, plaintiff Leonard Ross filed the above captioned action as well as a 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 1 and 2. The first page of Ross’s complaint 

includes the caption for the case and cites numerous statutes and legal theories (including various

criminal charges for which there is no private right of action). The second page consists of a 

handwritten note, signed by Ross, reading: “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 

State of California that the information in this form is true and correct to my knowledge. I understand 

that this means I am guilty of a crime if I lie on this form.” The third page is a copy of a fax dated 

from June of 2003, listing grounds for finding that parents failed to protect children under section 

300(b) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. The fourth and final page includes what 

appears to be intended as a definition of the doctrine of defamation, as well as largely illegible 

handwritten notes in the margin, and a larger handwritten note with the phone number for a towing 

Case 3:20-cv-00402-SI Document 13 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

company.

Magistrate Judge Spero granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

but separately reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. 

Nos. 5 and 7. On February 11, 2020, Magistrate Judge Spero filed a report and recommendation to 

dismiss the complaint without leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Dkt. Nos. 

7. In his report, Magistrate Judge Spero noted this is the fourth case Mr. Ross has filed against Ms. 

Moss in this district, with all the preceding cases dismissed on the pleadings.1 See Ross v. Moss, No. 

08-cv-04554- WDB (N.D. Cal.); Ross v. Moss, No. 06-cv-6617-EMC (N.D. Cal.); Ross v. Moss, 

No. 05-cv-2606-CRB (N.D. Cal.). 

The February 11, 2020 report and recommendation gave Mr. Ross a deadline of February 

25, 2020 to lodge any objections to the report and required that any objection “clearly identify all 

relevant factual allegations Ross could present if he were granted leave to amend his complaint.” 

Id. at 4. On February 20, 2020 Mr. Ross filed a document stating: 

I OBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS AS FRIVOLOUS 

PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE 1126(A)1,2,3,&4 COLD AND INIMICAL VOICE. 

THE RESPONDENT MOSS WITH MALICIOUS IN CONTEMPLATION OF 

CUSTODY HEARING IN 1992 FABRICATED THE LIE THAT PETITIONER 

ROSS WANTS TO MURDER HIS THREE CHILDREN AND WAS GRANTED 

SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY. PETITIONER ROSS INFORMED 

THE COURT BEFORE THE COUNTY WORKS FINDINGS SS 300 WIC. NOW 

TO THIS DATE AND TIME PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE A BONDING 

RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS NOW ADULT CHILDREN. THE COURT MADE 

MATTERS WORSE. I DEMAND A JURY TRIAL. 

Dkt. No. 9 (emphasis in original). 

Mr. Ross’s February 20, 2020 filing fails to address the concerns and deficiencies raised by 

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, including lack of jurisdiction over this nearly 20 

year old custody matter and failure to make factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim.

///

1 Mr. Ross has also filed numerous actions against other defendants, with similar results even 

after being granted leave to amend his complaints. See, e.g., Ross v. SFGH, No. 13-cv-04783-JSW 

(N.D. Cal.); Ross v. JFK Towers Tenants, No. 11-cv-05467-NC (N.D. Cal.); Ross v. S.F. C & C, 

No. 96-cv-03900-SI (N.D. Cal.); Ross v. Toben, No. 96-cv-2128-SBA (N.D. Cal.).

Case 3:20-cv-00402-SI Document 13 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

Having reviewed the complaint, and Mr. Ross’s objections, the Court hereby ADOPTS the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and DISMISSES the complaint WITH prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-00402-SI Document 13 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3