Gulizia v. Harrell
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-05983
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gulizia v. Harrell, Judge Freeman dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend because it asserted only a state-law claim lacking a private right of action and federal jurisdiction.
Anthony Gulizia's amended complaint was dismissed; the opinion identifies Deputy Tina Harrell and three San Jose parking enforcement officers as defendants.
What happened
In Gulizia v. Harrell, Anthony Gulizia, who represented himself, sued Deputy Tina Harrell and three San Jose parking enforcement officers over parking citations and an alleged courthouse confrontation. The court reviewed his amended complaint under a law requiring screening of certain cases filed without a lawyer or filing fee.
The amended complaint raised one claim against Deputy Harrell under California Penal Code § 136.1. The court said that statute did not provide a private right to bring a civil lawsuit and that the complaint asserted only a state-law claim, leaving the federal court without jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend, finding that further amendment would be futile after Gulizia had already received one opportunity to amend. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Gulizia v. Harrell · No. 5:21-cv-05983
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 29, 2021
Background
Anthony Gulizia filed this lawsuit without a lawyer against Deputy Tina Harrell and three San Jose parking enforcement officers. The lawsuit concerned parking citations issued to Gulizia's cargo van and an alleged confrontation between Gulizia and Harrell at a state courthouse.
The court had previously screened Gulizia's original complaint, dismissed four claims without leave to amend, and dismissed two claims with leave to amend. Gulizia then timely filed an amended complaint. The court screened that complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires the court to review certain cases filed by people proceeding without a lawyer or filing fee and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity.
Claim and Analysis
The amended complaint asserted one claim against Deputy Harrell under California Penal Code § 136.1, arising from the alleged courthouse confrontation. The court explained that the statute prohibits preventing or dissuading a witness or victim, but found no indication that it creates a private right of action—that is, a right for a private person to enforce the criminal statute through a civil lawsuit.
The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the amended complaint asserted only a state-law claim. The court had made the same jurisdictional point in its previous order.
Disposition
The court found that further amendment would be futile because Gulizia had already been given one opportunity to amend and his amended complaint asserted only a state-law claim over which the court lacked jurisdiction. The court therefore DISMISSED Gulizia's amended complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.