The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST CITY OF
Before the Court is plaintiff's response to the Court's order of
December 3, 2003, directing plaintiff to show cause why his claims
against the City of Los Angeles should not be dismissed.
Having reviewed plaintiffs response and the Court's prior orders in the
instant action, the Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's claims against the
City of Los Angeles for the reasons stated in the Court's order of
December 3, 2003, specifically, on the ground that plaintiff has failed
to state a claim against the City of Los Angeles and it would be futile
to allow further amendment.
The Clerk shall close the case.
 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a
trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its
 Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing
before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
The motion of defendants the State of California, the Attorney General,
Vance, and Breiling, to dismiss, for summary judgment, and for award of
attorney's fees is hereby GRANTED, as follows:
1. The First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action, as
against Breiling, are hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.
2. The Fourth Cause of Action, as against all moving defendants, is
hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend, to the extent the claim is based
on conduct other than execution of the arrest warrant.
3. Defendants are hereby GRANTED summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth
Cause of Action, to the extent the claim is based on execution of the
4. The Seventh Cause of Action, as against the State of California and
the Attorney General, is hereby ...