Welbon v. Edward R. Heath

Full title: EDDIE C. WELBON, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD R. HEATH SR. et al, Defendant

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2003

No. C 03-03156 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2003)

Opinion

No. C 03-03156 SI

November 19, 2003

JUDGMENT

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On July 8, 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint against numerous defendants alleging that defendants violated: Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; the California Constitution; the ADA; and numerous other state and federal laws. See Order at 1:14-21 (filed July 16, 2003). The complaint challenged the allegedly wrongful removal of plaintiff from his position as an officer with the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) organization. Id. at 1:22-27. Plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFF) and to receive appointed counsel.

This Court reviewed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) to ensure that cognizable claims were stated against defendants. By order filed July 16, 2003, the Court found that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under the laws he cited. The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

On August 15, 2003, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which the Court now considers. The underlying facts alleged in this amended complaint have not changed, and plaintiff continues to charge violations under Title VI and the 5th and 14th Amendments. However, plaintiff charges additional federal law violations, as follows: violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; violation of the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments; and violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203 (Rehabilitation Act).

After careful consideration, the Court finds that plaintiff still fails to state a claim. The Court, considering the same facts under the new federal violations claimed, is still unable to discern any cause of action that plaintiff may maintain against defendants that may be the basis for relief. Accordingly, plaintiff's second amended complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and request for appointment of counsel are DENIED. [Docket ## 3 and 4.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.