Shoyinka v. City of Santa Monica
Filed 2/3/06 Shoyinka v. City of Santa Monica CA2/8



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA





SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT





DIVISION EIGHT





TIWALOLA OLADIJI SHOYINKA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.
B184601

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SC083654)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Allan J. Goodman, Judge. Affirmed.

Tiwalola Oladiji Shoyinka, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney, and Debra S. Kanoff, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.

_______________________________


The trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of respondents, the City of Santa Monica, the city's police department, four police officers and the chief of police, to the amended complaint filed by appellant Tiwalola Oladiji Shoyinka, who has been in pro. per. throughout these proceedings. We affirm.

THE COMPLAINT

Appellant's amended complaint is, for the most part, identical to the original complaint. The court sustained the city's demurrer to the original complaint; the minute order advised appellant that he would have to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10[1] and California Rules of Court, rules 201 and 312.[2] The amended complaint does not comply with these provisions.

The amended complaint, like the original complaint, is 25 typewritten pages long and is composed for the most part of 58 separate â€