United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLIARE, Magistrate Judge.
On August 13, 2014, the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff's motion for judgment, and plaintiff's request to compel admissions. Rehan Sheikh appeared in pro per. Matthew Besmer appeared for defendants Brian Kelly, Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency, and Mark Tweety, "Manager of the California Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"). On review of the motions, the documents filed in support and opposition, upon hearing the argument of plaintiff and counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2014, plaintiff initiated this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kelly and Tweety for their alleged refusal to renew plaintiff's driving license on three separate occasions without due process. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that defendants violated his rights, injunctive relief in the form of an order directing defendants to renew his license, and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing "such policies and procedures as declared unconstitutional or burdensome by this Court."
Plaintiff first sought renewal of his driver's license at the DMV office in Stockton, California on January 4, 2012. His application, however, was denied after plaintiff was verbally informed that he had a "Failure to Appear" ("FTA") on his record. Plaintiff claims that the DMV refused to provide any further information regarding the FTA, such as when and where plaintiff failed to appear; did not issue a written notice stating the reason for denying plaintiff's driver's license renewal; and did not advise plaintiff of the availability of any remedial procedures. When plaintiff requested a pre-deprivation administration hearing, the DMV allegedly denied his request.
On February 29, 2012, plaintiff applied a second time for renewal of his driver's license at the Stockton DMV office. On this occasion, plaintiff's application was denied due to an unspecified "block" on his record. Again, plaintiff claims that the DMV did not issue a written notice stating the reason for denying plaintiff's driver's license renewal and did not advise plaintiff of the availability of any remedial procedures. When plaintiff requested a pre-deprivation administration hearing, the DMV denied his request and instead directed him to contact the DMV office in Sacramento. When plaintiff did so, he spoke to defendant Mark Tweety, who allegedly told plaintiff that "there is no Due Process available for denial of driving license." Compl. ¶ 17.
On March 23, 2012, plaintiff was contacted by Tweety and asked to come to the Sacramento DMV office to discuss the non-renewal of his driver's license. On March 27, 2012, plaintiff visited the Sacramento DMV Office only to learn that he would be unable to renew his license due to a police report that was filed. Plaintiff claims that he was not informed of the relevance of the report, was not issued a written notice stating the reason for the denial of his driver's license, and was not advised of the availability of any remedial procedures. When plaintiff requested a post-deprivation administrative hearing, his request was denied.
Now pending before the Court is defendants' May 7, 2014 motion to dismiss, which plaintiff opposes. Also pending are plaintiff's July 9, 2014 request to compel admission, ECF No. 31; plaintiff's July 14, 2014 First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 32; and plaintiff's July 14, 2014 Motion for Judgment, ECF No. 33.
A. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
The Court turns first to the propriety of plaintiff July 14, 2014 First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 32. Because defendants filed their motion to dismiss on May 7, 2014 - more than 21 days before plaintiff's amended pleading was filed - plaintiff may not amend without either the defendants' written consent or the court's leave. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Here, there is no indication that plaintiff obtained the defendants' written consent before filing the amended pleading, and the docket does not indicate that a motion to amend was ever filed by plaintiff. Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint will be stricken.
B. Plaintiff's Request to Compel Admission
The Court next considers plaintiff's July 9, 2014 request to compel admission re clarification on alleged failure to appear. ECF No. 31. This request is properly construed as a Request for Admission directed to defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Plaintiff is hereby informed that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. Here, plaintiff asserts that he has submitted his Request for Admissions to defendants and is awaiting a ...