Mary Gustafson v. City of San Jose

Background

Mary Gustafson filed the civil case without a lawyer against the City of San Jose and Sam Liccardo, identified as the Mayor of San Jose. The opinion also notes that Gustafson elsewhere identified the “San Jose Office of the City Attorney Allan Lipton” as another possible defendant. The case was transferred from the Central District of California to the Northern District of California after the prior judge determined that venue was improper in the Central District.

The case concerns a $35,600 citation issued by the City of San Jose for code-enforcement violations involving an allegedly unpermitted sunroom on Gustafson’s San Jose home. Gustafson asserted that she did not authorize work on the home, that the home was exempt from permitting requirements for additions, and that the City cited her for revenue and discriminated against and harassed her.

Earlier Screening and Case Status

After allowing Gustafson to proceed without paying the filing fee, Magistrate Judge Cousins found that the complaint was difficult to understand and did not plausibly state a claim, establish the court’s jurisdiction, or specify the requested relief as required by the federal pleading rules. Judge Cousins gave Gustafson leave to amend, meaning permission to file a corrected complaint, by July 19, 2019.

Gustafson did not file an amended complaint or serve the defendants. She also did not file the required joint case-management statement. Instead, she and Gilbert Rivero filed letters with the court. The order states that Rivero could not pursue Gustafson’s claim on her behalf because a person representing herself must appear personally and may not delegate that responsibility to a nonlawyer.

Rulings

The court denied Gustafson’s request to transfer the case to Contra Costa County. It also denied her request for appointment of counsel, explaining that this was a civil case and that a public defender is available only in criminal cases. The court referred her to the Federal Pro Se Program for assistance but did not appoint counsel.

The court denied Gustafson’s request for discovery concerning citations issued to other homes. It explained that the case was still in the pleading stage and that discovery would not begin unless Gustafson first filed an amended complaint.

The court extended the expired amendment deadline to November 1, 2019, in the interests of justice. It stated that if Gustafson failed to file an amended complaint, it would dismiss the case with prejudice. The order itself did not dismiss the case.