Eslaminia v. State of California

Full title: REZA ESLAMINIA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jan 16, 2004

No. C 02-1726 MMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2004)

Opinion

No. C 02-1726 MMC

January 16, 2004

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST CITY OF LOS ANGELES

MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

Before the Court is plaintiff's response to the Court's order of December 3, 2003, directing plaintiff to show cause why his claims against the City of Los Angeles should not be dismissed.

Having reviewed plaintiffs response and the Court's prior orders in the instant action, the Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's claims against the City of Los Angeles for the reasons stated in the Court's order of December 3, 2003, specifically, on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the City of Los Angeles and it would be futile to allow further amendment.

The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The motion of defendants the State of California, the Attorney General, Vance, and Breiling, to dismiss, for summary judgment, and for award of attorney's fees is hereby GRANTED, as follows:

1. The First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action, as against Breiling, are hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.

2. The Fourth Cause of Action, as against all moving defendants, is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend, to the extent the claim is based on conduct other than execution of the arrest warrant.

3. Defendants are hereby GRANTED summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action, to the extent the claim is based on execution of the arrest warrant.

4. The Seventh Cause of Action, as against the State of California and the Attorney General, is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.

5. Vance and Breiling are hereby GRANTED summary judgment on the Seventh Cause of action.

6. Attorneys' fees are hereby AWARDED against plaintiff and in favor of the State of California, the Attorney General and Vance in the amount of $5500.

The City of Belmont's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

The Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's claims against the City of Los Angeles for the reasons stated in the Court's Order of December 3, 2003, specifically, on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the City of Los Angeles and it would be futile to allow further amendment.