Mary Gustafson v. City of San Jose
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-03047
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Mary Gustafson v. City of San Jose, Judge Davila denied transfer, counsel, and discovery requests, extended the amendment deadline, and warned of dismissal if no amendment.
Mary Gustafson was directly affected by the denial of her transfer, counsel, and discovery requests and by the extended deadline to amend. The City of San Jose and the other named or possible defendants were affected because the case remained in the pleading stage and had not proceeded to service or discovery.
What happened
In Mary Gustafson v. City of San Jose, Mary Gustafson sued the City of San Jose and Sam Liccardo over a $35,600 code-enforcement citation involving an allegedly unpermitted sunroom. She said the work was exempt from permitting rules and that city employees discriminated against and harassed her. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California after the original court found venue improper.
Mary Gustafson was representing herself. Magistrate Judge Cousins found her complaint insufficient because it did not clearly state a plausible claim, establish the court’s authority to hear the case, or explain the relief she wanted. He allowed her to amend, but she did not file an amended complaint or serve the defendants. The court also said that another person could not pursue the case for her, and that letters demanding damages did not replace a complaint.
Judge Davila denied her requests to transfer the case, appoint a lawyer, and obtain discovery. He extended the deadline to file an amended complaint to November 1, 2019, and stated that the case would be dismissed with prejudice if she failed to file one. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Mary Gustafson v. City of San Jose · No. 5:19-cv-03047
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 2, 2019
Background
Mary Gustafson filed a civil complaint against the City of San Jose and Sam Liccardo, identified as the Mayor of San Jose. The complaint also identified the “San Jose Office of the City Attorney Allan Lipton” as another possible defendant. The dispute arose from a $35,600 citation issued by the City for code-enforcement violations concerning an allegedly unpermitted sunroom on Gustafson’s San Jose home.
Gustafson asserted that she had not performed unauthorized work, that the home was exempt from permitting requirements for additions, and that the City cited her for revenue purposes. She also alleged discrimination and harassment by City employees. The case was originally filed in the Central District of California and was transferred to the Northern District of California after Judge MacKinnon determined that venue was improper in the Central District.
Prior screening and failure to amend
Gustafson was proceeding without a lawyer. Magistrate Judge Cousins granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee but found that the complaint was insufficient under the federal statute governing screening of cases filed without the filing fee. The order stated that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim, establish the court’s jurisdiction, and identify the relief sought as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Judge Cousins granted leave to amend, with an original deadline of July 19, 2019.
Gustafson did not file an amended complaint or serve any defendant. She also did not file the required joint case-management statement. Instead, she and Gilbert Rivero filed letters. The court ruled that Rivero could not pursue Gustafson’s claim on her behalf and that Gustafson had to prosecute the case herself.
Rulings on the letters
The court explained that a letter demanding damages from Sam Liccardo did not replace a properly pleaded complaint. It also stated that the case was civil, not criminal, so a federal public defender was not available. Gustafson was referred to the Federal Pro Se Program, but her request for appointment of counsel was DENIED.
Gustafson’s request to transfer the case to Contra Costa County was DENIED. The court stated that the case was properly assigned to the San Jose Division because the claims arose from property and events in San Jose.
Gustafson’s request for information about citations issued to other homes was treated as a discovery request and was DENIED. The court explained that the case remained at the pleading stage and that discovery had not begun. It stated that Gustafson would need to file an amended complaint before the case could progress to discovery.
Leave to amend and disposition
Judge Davila extended the expired amendment deadline in the interests of justice. Gustafson was given until November 1, 2019, to file an amended complaint as directed by Judge Cousins’s earlier order. The court stated that if she failed to do so, it would dismiss the case with prejudice under the federal screening statute. The October 2 order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.