Christopher Lee Card v. Union City Police Department, et al.; Christopher Lee Card v. Officer Parker, et al.; Christopher Lee Card v. Union City Police Department, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 CHRISTOPHER LEE CARD, Case No. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR)

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE v. 6 Re: Dkt. No. 23 7 UNION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 8 Defendants.

9 CHRISTOPHER LEE CARD, Case No. 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 11 v. Re: Dkt. No. 17 12 OFFICER PARKER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 CHRISTOPHER LEE CARD, Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR)

15 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THIS CASE 16 v. WITH CASE NO. 25-CV-09432 AMO (PR); AND TO FILE COMPLAINT AS 17 UNION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT IN CASE et al., NO. 25-CV-09432-AMO (PR) 18 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 11 19 CHRISTOPHER LEE CARD, Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) 20 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 21 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THIS v. CASE WITH CASE NO. 25-CV-01878- 22 AMO (PR); GRANTING HIS MOTION TO URSULA JONES DICKSON, et al., VOLUNTARILY DISMISS CLAIMS 23 AGAINST DEFENDANTS DICKSON AND Defendants. REEVES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL 24 CAPACITIES; AND GRANTING HIS MOTIONS TO TERMINATE 25 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

26 Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 11, 12, 14, 21 27 I. INTRODUCTION 1 Dickson’s motions to dismiss Plaintiff Christopher Lee Card’s complaint and amended complaint 2 in his higher numbered above-captioned civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Case No. 3 25-cv-009432-AMO (PR), Dkts. 4, 12. Card opposes and has filed motions to terminate the 4 motion to dismiss his original complaint as moot and to terminate the motion to dismiss his 5 amended complaint as premature. Id., Dkts. 11, 14. Card also filed a notice of voluntary 6 dismissal of certain claims against Defendants Dickson and Inspector Louise Reeves, in which 7 Card requests to voluntarily dismiss all claims against Defendants Dickson and Reeves in their 8 individual capacities. Id., Dkt. 22. The Court GRANTS Card’s request to voluntarily dismiss 9 claims against Defendants Dickson and Reeves in their individual capacities. 10 Also before the Court is Card’s motion to consolidate the four above-captioned civil rights 11 actions. Case No. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR), Dkt. 23; Case No. 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR), Dkt. 17; 12 Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR), Dkt. 11; Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), Dkt. 21. 13 Defendants in Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) have filed an opposition to the motion. Case No. 14 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), Dkt. 24. 15 II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN CASE NO. 25-CV-09432-AMO (PR) 16 Card originally filed Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) in the Alameda County Superior 17 Court, Christopher Lee Card v. District Attorney Madam Ursula Jones Dickson, et al., Case No. 18 25CV133665, alleging state and federal constitutional violations stemming from his December 7, 19 2021 arrest, detention, and subsequent prosecution. See Case No. 25-cv-09432, Dkt. 1-3 at 2-551; 20 Defs.’ Ex. A. Defendant County of Alameda removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Instead of first filing a motion asking the Court to screen the complaint under 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Defendant County of Alameda has filed the pending motion to dismiss the 23 complaint, see id., Dkt. 4, which Card argues should be terminated as moot because he has since 24 filed his amended complaint, see id., Dkt. 11. Defendants County of Alameda and Dickson (who 25 has been sued in her official capacity in the amended complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the 26

27 1 Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management filing 1 amended complaint. Id., Dkt. 12. Card argues that the second motion to dismiss the amended 2 complaint should be terminated as premature. Id., Dkt. 14. The Court agrees with Card and 3 GRANTS his motions. Id., Dkts. 11, 14. Thus, in Case No. 25-cv-09432, the Court 4 TERMINATES the pending motion to dismiss the complaint as moot and TERMINATES the 5 pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint as premature. Id., Dkts. 4, 12. 6 III. MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION 7 Through his pending motion for consolidation, Card proposes consolidating the four 8 above-referenced cases: Case Nos. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR), 25-cv- 9 01878-AMO (PR), 25-09432-AMO (PR). A brief summary of each of these four cases is helpful. 10 A. Summary of Cases 11 1. Case No. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR) 12 Card filed in October 2023, against Defendants Union City and the Union City Police 13 Department officers from Card’s December 7, 2021 arrest. Case No. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR), 14 Dkt. 1. The Court dismissed this action and entered judgment in May 2024. Id., Dkt. 10. Card 15 also filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Id. Dkt. 18. The Ninth 16 Circuit has since dismissed the appeal and issued its mandate. Id., Dkts. 20, 21. 17 2. Case No. 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR) 18 Card filed this suit in February 2024, against Defendants Oakland Police Department, 19 Sacramento County Probation Department, The Mercury News, Leaders in Community 20 Alternatives, Inc., Hospital Worker, and various officers. Case No. 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR), Dkt. 21 1. In August 2024, Card filed an amended complaint, in which he only alleged claims against 22 Defendants The Mercury News and Nate Gartrell for defamation and various federal civil rights 23 claims under section 1983. Id., Dkt. 11. On October 3, 2025, the Court dismissed the amended 24 complaint and entered judgment. Id., Dkt. 13. Card appealed, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the 25 appeal as frivolous on April 23, 2026 and issued its mandate. Id., Dkt. 20, 21. 26 3. Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR) 27 Card filed this active suit against the County of Alameda, Union City, and various 1 2021 arrest and subsequent prosecution, as well as his detainment during which the process was 2 ongoing (including detainment at the John George Psychiatric Hospital) on February 21, 2025. 3 Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR), Dkt. 1 at 7-19. 4 4. Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) 5 On July 30, 2025, Card originally filed Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) in the Alameda 6 County Superior Court, alleging state and federal constitutional violations stemming from Card’s 7 December 2021 arrest and subsequent prosecution. See Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), Dkt. 8 1-3 at 2-552; Defs.’ Ex. A. Defendant County of Alameda removed the action to this Court 9 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Instead of first filing a motion asking the Court to screen the 10 complaint and amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Defendants have filed the pending 11 motions to dismiss, see Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), Dkts. 4, 12, which have been 12 terminated as moot (see id., Dkt. 4) and premature (see id., Dkt. 12), as explained above. 13 B. Analysis 14 Consolidation is appropriate where there is a “common issue of law or fact” between the 15 cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). When related cases fall within the parameters of Rule 42, it is within 16 the district court’s sound discretion to consolidate them. See Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. 17 Ct., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “[I]n deciding whether to consolidate actions under Rule 42(a), 18 a court must balance the savings of time and effort consolidation will produce against any 19 inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result.” Takeda v. Turbodyne 20 Technologies, Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1132 (C.D. Cal.1999). 21 Defendants County of Alameda and Dickson in Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) oppose 22 the motion to consolidate Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) with Case Nos. 23-cv-05613-AMO 23 (PR) and 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR) because those cases are closed. Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO 24 (PR), Dkt. 24 at 5-6. The Court agrees that consolidation is not warranted as to these closed cases, 25 and it notes that the Ninth Circuit has since dismissed the appeals and issued mandates. See Case 26

27 2 Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management filing 1 No. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR), Dkts. 20, 21; Case No. 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR), Dkts. 20, 21. 2 Therefore, Card’s motion to consolidate Case Nos. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) and 25-cv-01878- 3 AMO (PR) with Case Nos. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR) and 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR) is DENIED. 4 The Court now turns to Card’s motion to consolidate Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR) 5 with Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR). First, the Court points out that in Defendant County of 6 Alameda’s initial motion to dismiss the complaint in Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), the 7 defendant concedes that Card filed multiple attempts (listing his prior lawsuit, Case No. 25-cv- 8 01878-AMO (PR)), in which Card:

9 attempt[s] to sue, at least in part, over his December 2021 arrest, post- arrest detainment (in either Santa Rita Jail or John George Psychiatric 10 Hospital), and related criminal prosecution by the Alameda County D.A.’s office in Case No. 21-CR-014602 (including Plaintiff’s issues 11 with the prosecution and his own representation). 12 Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), Dkt. 4 at 14. Thus, it seems Defendant Alameda County 13 agrees that Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR) arose from the same subject matter as the instant 14 Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR). See id. 15 On November 10, 2025, Card filed his amended complaint, which is the operative 16 complaint in Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR). That amended complaint names the same 17 defendants from the original complaint—Defendants County of Alameda, Dickson, and Reeves (in 18 their official capacities) as well as Prosecutor Gregory Boller, Inspector Nhon Duong, Victim’s 19 Advocate Natalie Hernandez, and “Doe Supervisor” (prosecutor from Alameda County and 20 supervisor of Defendant Boller). Compare Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), Dkt. 1-3 at 5-6 21 with id., Dkt. 9 at 7. Card also names the following new defendants: Assistant District Attorney 22 Danielle Hilton; Deputy District Attorneys Alexis Causey and Nicholas Homer; UCPD; UCPD 23 Officers Brigid Dineem, Chris Lanier, Pou Wong, Jeff Wilson, and “John Doe” (an unknown 24 UCPD officer); and Union City. Id., Dkt. 9 at 7. Just as in Card’s prior action Case No. 25-cv- 25 01878-AMO (PR), he “alleges he was arrested by [UCPD officers] on December 7, 2021, for four 26 counts of pimping, pandering, human trafficking, and rape.” Id., Dkt. 9 at 10. Card further alleges 27 that the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted him for the December 7, 2021 1 generally. 2 Because the claims in both cases are closely related, for purposes of judicial economy, the 3 Court GRANTS Card’s motion to consolidate Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR) with Case No. 4 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR).3 The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO 5 (PR) and TERMINATE as moot all pending motions in that matter. All future filings shall refer 6 to the higher numbered case, 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR). The Clerk shall file Case No. 25-cv- 7 01878-AMO (PR), Docket No. 1 as the “Supplemental Complaint” in Case No. 25-cv-09432- 8 AMO (PR). 9 As mentioned above, Defendant County of Alameda did not first file a motion asking the 10 Court to screen the complaint or the amended complaint in Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) 11 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Accordingly, the Court terminated the pending motions to dismiss. 12 Case No. 25-cv-00653-AMO (PR), Dkt. 4 (terminated as moot) & 12 (terminated as premature). 13 In a separate written Order, the Court will screen the amended complaint along with the 14 supplemental complaint after it has been filed in Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR). 15 IV. INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING UNSOLICITED/DUPLICATIVE FILINGS BY CARD 16 Throughout the course of Card’s various proceedings, the Court notes that he has 17 consistently filed many duplicative requests and unnecessary submissions. See, e.g., Case No. 25- 18 cv-00653-AMO (PR), Dkts. 13, 21. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court sees no need 19 for Card to file any further requests or any other filings in this action until after (1) the Court 20 instructs him to do so once it has reviewed his claims or (2) he has been served with the 21 defendants’ dispositive motion, if the defendants choose to renew their motion to dismiss after the 22 Court reviews Card’s claims. This does not mean that Card is prohibited from filing additional 23 pleadings before then, but the Court directs him to refrain from filing unsolicited or duplicative 24 filings. 25 26

27 3 The Court notes that Defendant County of Alameda paid the filing fee for Case No. 25-cv- ' V. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Court GRANTS Card’s request to voluntarily dismiss claims against ° Defendants Dickson and Reeves in their individual capacities. Dkt. 22. 2. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Card’s motion to consolidate the ° above-captioned actions. Card’s motion to consolidate Case Nos. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) and ° 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR) with Case Nos. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR) and 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR) is DENIED. And his motion to consolidate Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR) with Case No. 25-cv- ° 09432-AMO (PR) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall CLOSE Case No. 25-cv-01878-AMO (PR) ° and TERMINATE as moot all pending motions in that case. All future filings shall refer to the ° higher numbered case, Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR). The Clerk shall file Case No. 25-cv- " 01878-AMO (PR), Docket No. 1 as the “Supplemental Complaint” in Case No. 25-cv-09432- AMO (PR). ° 3. The Court GRANTS Card’s motions to terminate the pending motions to dismiss. "4 Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR), Dkts. 11, 14. Thus, the Court TERMINATES the pending motion to dismiss the complaint in Case No. 25-cv-09432-AMO (PR) as moot, and it TERMINATES the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint in that same case as = premature. /d., Dkts. 4, 12. In a separate written Order, the Court will screen the amended complaint along with the supplemental complaint after it has been filed in Case No. 25-cv-09432- AMO (PR). 20 4. The Court instructs Card not to file further unsolicited or duplicative pleadings in 1 this action until after (1) the Court instructs him to do so once it has reviewed his claims or (2) he has been served with the defendants’ dispositive motion, if the defendants chooses to file a °° renewed motion to dismiss after the Court’s review of Card’s claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. °° Dated: 6/17/2026 26 i) -

28 United States District Judge