Blanche Sykes v. United States of America, and City and County of San Francisco

The order of dismissal as to the City and County of San Francisco is affirmed, not for failure to prosecute, but for the reason that on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint we can find no diversity or other jurisdiction when she alleges she is a resident (state citizenship not recited) of the County of San Mateo, California. Pacific Freight Lines v. United States, 9 Cir., 239 F.2d 191 ; Wasserman v. Perugini, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 305 ; Bullock v. United States, D.C.N.J., 72 F.Supp. 445 .

Also, it should be noted that some of the problems of Roth v. Davis, 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 681 , and Molnar v. National Broadcasting Co., 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 684 , lurk here. Plaintiff named First Doe, Second Doe, Third Doe, Fourth Doe, Fifth Doe and Sixth Doe as defendants, saying First, Second and Third were employees of the United States and Fourth, Fifth and Sixth were employees of the City and County of San Francisco. The Does are not listed as parties on the appeal and where they went, we do not know. Anyway, throwing in a bunch of Does in federal pleading without knowing why is a hazard.

After notice and argument, the case was dismissed in the trial court under the district court’s Rule 14 reading…