Opinion
Case No. 20-cv-00402-SI
02-27-2020
LEONARD D. ROSS, Plaintiff, v. DENISE MARIE MOSS, Defendant.
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 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. 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.).
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.). --------
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. ///
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
/s/_________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge