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.

Pagtakhan v. Alexander

United States District Court, N.D. California

November 21, 2013

MARLON PAGTAKHAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ROLAND ALEXANDER; et al., Defendants

Page 1152

Marlon Estacio Pagtakhan, Plaintiff, Pro se, San Mateo, CA.

Sara Marie French, derivative victim, Plaintiff, Pro se, San Mateo, CA.

Purificacion Estacio Pagtakhan, derivative victim, Plaintiff, Pro se, San Mateo, CA.

For Burlingame Police Department, Charles Witte, Defendants: Gregg Anthony Thornton, Esq., Selman Breitman, LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Jatinder K. Singh, court appointed doctor, Defendant: Norman Charles La Force, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Jeffrey F. Paccassi, San Francisco, CA.

For Thomas E. Samuels, court appointed doctor, Defendant: Kimberly F Whitfield, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ropers, Majestic, Kohn Bentley, San Jose, CA.

For Eric Musser Hove, as individuals, Defendant: Mark Perry Edson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bennett Samuelsen Reynolds and Allard, Alameda, CA.

For Jane Doe Feldman, Elizabeth M. Hill, Stephen M. Wagstaffe, James P. Fox, Melissa R. McKowan, Lisa Mancini, Donald R. Weiher, Christina Webb, San Mateo County District Attorney's Office, Defendants: Peter Kevin Finck, County Counsel's Office, Hall of Justice and Records, Redwood City, CA.

For Joel P. Leifer, Defendant: Kimberly F Whitfield, Ropers, Majestic, Kohn Bentley, San Jose, CA.

OPINION

Page 1153

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR COUNTY DEFENDANTS

(Docket # 58)

SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, claiming among other things, violations of his civil rights stemming from a prosecution arising out of his alleged stalking of persons connected to a wrestling school in which he had enrolled. The court stayed the action pending resolution of the criminal charges. Three years later, the charges were dismissed, and the stay was lifted. Plaintiff then filed a 108-page first amended complaint with more than 40 causes of action against 35 defendants, and later filed a 26-page amendment. The Court dismissed some of the defendants, and ordered service on other defendants. The County Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the claims against them are barred by the principles of res judicata and (2) they have immunity. Plaintiff first responded with a cursory opposition brief which attempted to simultaneously oppose five separate motions by different defendants. The court permitted plaintiff to file further written oppositions to the motions pending against him. Plaintiff filed short opposition briefs to the several motions, including an opposition to the County Defendants' motion, but submitted no evidence.

BACKGROUND

A. Overview of Plaintiff's Action

The following is a summary of the factual allegations made in plaintiff's first amended complaint: Pagtakhan wanted to be a professional wrestler, so he signed up for a camp at the All Pro Wrestling School in Hayward. The people who operated and took part in the wrestling camp made statements and did other things that allegedly violated his state and federal rights from about July 2006 until August 2007. He wanted to drop out of the program (or the All Pro Wrestling operators ...


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.