Randy Dewayne Pittman v. City of San Jose, et al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN, Case No. 25-cv-07557-PCP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants.

12 Pro se plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman filed this action against the City of San José and several city officials alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. According to Mr. Pittman, the defendants unlawfully failed to ensure his access to an accessible parking spot within 200 feet of his apartment building.

16 Concurrent with his complaint, Mr. Pittman filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, i.e., without paying the otherwise mandatory filing fee to initiate a lawsuit. The Court previously granted that application and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), screened Mr. Pittman’s complaint. See Dkt. No. 17. As the Court explained in that order, Mr. Pittman’s complaint fails to state a claim under either the ADA or Section 504. The Court therefore dismissed the case with leave to amend. The Court instructed Mr. Pittman that, if he failed to file an amended complaint by December 1, 2025, the Court would dismiss his case with prejudice.

23 Though the Court granted Mr. Pittman leave to amend, Mr. Pittman has not filed an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s previous order, the Court therefore dismisses the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2).

26 See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court also denies Mr. Pittman’s pending motions to compel the perfection of service, Dkt. No. 19, and for sanctions and 1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated: December 30, 2025 4 ag bem P. Casey Ritts 5 United States District Judge

© = 17 Z 18