Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BERRY LYNN ADAMS v. DENYING AS MOOT

November 30, 2010

BERRY LYNN ADAMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DENYING AS MOOT DANIEL L. KRAFT, A STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARK
RANGER, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 12 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ) COMPLAINT; DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14

13

15

16

Presently before the Court are various motions filed by both Defendants and Plaintiff.

Defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings and for sanctions. Plaintiff has moved for 18 leave to amend his complaint. The Court will address Defendants' motion for sanctions in a 19 separate Order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems Plaintiff's motion for leave 20 to amend his complaint and Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings appropriate for 21 resolution without oral argument. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's 22 motion for leave to amend his complaint, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion for 23 judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's original complaint. 24

17

I.BACKGROUND

25

A.Plaintiff's Initial Complaint

26

Plaintiff Berry Lynn Adams filed his initial complaint on February 2, 2010 making broad 27 allegations regarding alleged "violations of civil rights" against various State Park Rangers and the 28 State of California. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of the City of Aptos, 2

California and has been surf fishing at Seacliff State Park for thirty years. Compl. ¶ 4. According 3 to Plaintiff, Seacliff State Park was formerly patrolled by Santa Cruz County Sherriff's Deputies 4

Park in an "officious and overbearing" manner. Id. at ¶ 6. In a June 22, 2009 interview with a 6 local television station, Plaintiff commented that the State of California could save money by not 7 having State Park Rangers patrol State Parks, and instead have the Parks patrolled by local 8

In response to his public criticism of the State Park Rangers, Plaintiff alleges that the State

Park Rangers singled Plaintiff out for harassment. For example, when a former friend of 11

"without being overbearing," but around 1985, California State Park Rangers began patrolling the 5

Sherriff's Deputies. Id. at ¶ 7. 9

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff's, Greg Inloes, falsely complained to State Park Rangers that Plaintiff threatened him with 12 bodily harm, the State Park Rangers did not independently ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.