Richard G. Baxter v. Betty C. Bortin, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05559
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 RICHARD G. BAXTER, Case No. 25-cv-05559-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 6

7 BETTY C. BORTIN, et al., Dkt. No. 2 Defendants. 8

9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 Plaintiff Richard G. Baxter alleges that Vicki Hennessy, Betty Bortin, and Sandra 12 Schwartz embezzled public funds. Because there is no federal jurisdiction over his claims, 13 this federal action is DISMISSED. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Baxter alleges that Vicki Hennessy, while Sheriff of San Francisco, “allowed Betty 16 C. Bortin, Esq.[,] and Sandra Schwartz, Esq.[,] to embezzle money from the San Francisco 17 Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) “This money was 18 used to finance” Hennessy’s campaign for sheriff, and Bortin “used the money to pay her 19 taxes.” (Id.) Baxter alleges that he was married to Bortin and “she was always asking for 20 extensions to pay her taxes.” (Id.) He believes that the allegedly embezzled funds “should 21 have been used for better conditions in the San Francisco County Jails.” (Id. at 7.) He also 22 alleges that Bortin refinanced his mortgage without his permission, thereby causing him 23 “to pay a 30-year mortgage twice.” (Id. at 5.) 24 Federal courts have the power and the duty to raise the issue of standing sua sponte 25 and to dismiss the action if standing is wanting. Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 26 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002). If a plaintiff does not have standing, a federal court has no 27 jurisdiction over his suit. See Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 1 Standing is present only when (1) a plaintiff suffers a concrete, particularized injury 2 || which is actual or imminent; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the 3 || conduct complained of; and (3) the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable judicial 4 || decision. See Carney v. Adams, 592 U.S. 53, 58 (2020). Further, “‘a grievance that 5 || amounts to nothing more than an abstract and generalized harm to a citizen’s interest in the 6 || proper application of the law does not count as an ‘injury in fact.” And it consequently 7 || does not show standing.” Id. 8 Baxter has no standing to raise an embezzlement claim against Hennessy, Bortin, or 9 || Schwartz in federal court. He has suffered no actual, concrete injury, but rather alleges an 10 || abstract and generalized harm to his interest in the proper application of law. 11 || Consequently, I lack jurisdiction over his embezzlement claims against Hennessy, Bortin, 2 and Schwartz. Accordingly, these claims are DISMSSED. 5 13 Baxter’s claim that Bortin refinanced his mortgage without his consent is not a S 14 || cognizable federal claim. He cites no federal law or federal right which would confer 3 15 || federal jurisdiction over such a claim. Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED without a 16 || prejudice to Baxter pursuing such a claim in state court.

17 Baxter’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.) 18 CONCLUSION 19 This federal action is DISMISSED. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is 20 || GRANTED. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of 21 || defendants, and close the file. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 23 Dated: October 22, 2025 \ 002 * WILLIAM H. ORRICK 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28