Hasan v. Wardlaw

[4] 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [7] 8 MOHAMMAD HAIDER AGHA HASAN, CASE NO. 19-cv-05800-YGR 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; DISMISSING ACTION 10 vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING ECF FILING; AND 11 KIM WARDLAW, ET AL., DENYING MOTION FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES OR TO HOLD ACTION IN 12 Defendants. ABEYANCE 13 Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 7 14 Presently before the Court are the motions of plaintiff Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan 15 (“Hasan”) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, for permission for electronic case filing, and to 16 compel disclosure of judge’s financial interests. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 7.) The motions are all DENIED 17 for the reasons stated herein. 18 1. Denial of In Forma Pauperis Status and Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915 (e)(2)(B) [19] The Court DENIES Hasan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The application [20] submitted by Hasan, signed and dated July 11, 2018, but filed September 17, 2019, does not [21] provide sufficient information concerning his present financial circumstances. While the [22] information stated therein would indicate that Hasan’s assets and income were insufficient to [23] enable him to pay the filing fee at the time of its making, the fact that the declaration appears to [24] have been made more than one year prior to the filing of his complaint herein does not permit the [25] Court to make a finding that he presently cannot do so. [26] Further, the Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action that is: “(i) is frivolous or [27] malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 1 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). “[S]ection 2 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 3 that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, 4 Hasan’s complaint incorporates several pages of quotations from a multitude of sources, including 5 various opinions of the United States Supreme Court, the Declaration of Independence, 6 administrative decisions, a federal statute, legal treatises, and other works. The complaint then 7 states a declaration of Hasan’s belief that he has meritorious claims against defendant Ninth 8 Circuit Court of Appeal Judges Kim Wardlaw, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Andrew Hurwitz,1 and 9 asserting that the complaint is not required to state a basis for avoiding dismissal due to judicial 10 immunity. (Complaint at 6.) The only allegations in the “Statement of Facts” portion of the 11 complaint are allegations that: “1. Judges Wardlaw, Nguyen, and Hu[r]witz injured Mr. Hasan[; 12 and] 2. Mr. Hasan suffered from the injuries inflicted upon him by the three Judges.” (Id. at 10.) 13 The “Causes of Action” portion of the Complaint states: 14 1. United States Constitution a. Facts 1 and 2 15 2. United States Code a. Facts 1 and 2 16 3. Common Law a. Facts 1 and 2 [17] 18 (Id.) These allegations are insufficient to state any claim against these defendants. 19 Further, as anticipated by Hasan, the judges named as defendants are all immune from suit. 20 Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for their judicial acts. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. 21 Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 22 (13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1872) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)); see also Stump v. Sparkman, [23] 35 U.S. 349 , 356–57 (1978) (judges are not “deprived of immunity because the action [they] took 24 [were] in error, [were] done maliciously, or in excess of [their] authority”) (quotations and citation [25] 1 Judges Wardlaw, Nguyen, and Hurwitz issued the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s [26] September 16, 2019 Order dismissing appeal 19-16722, Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan v. Jeffrey S. White. That appeal sought to challenge the August 15, 2019 Order in Northern District Cases [27] 19-cv-3979 JST, Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan v. Jeffrey S. White, dismissing his complaint 1 omitted); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judges’ immunity from suit cannot be overcome 2 by allegations of bad faith or malice). Such absolute immunity serves a number of functions 3 including “protecting the finality of judgments[,] . . . discouraging inappropriate collateral 4 attacks[,] . . . [and] protect[ing] judicial independence by insulating judges from vexatious actions 5 prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988). To determine 6 whether absolute judicial immunity applies, the allegations of the complaint must be clear enough 7 to ascertain whether the acts complained of were undertaken in the judge’s role of resolving and 8 adjudicating issues, rather than the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that a judge 9 may sometimes perform. Cf. id. at 230 (judge not entitled to absolute immunity for his decisions 10 to demote and discharge court employee). 11 Based upon the foregoing, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Hasan 12 shall file any amended complaint and amended application to proceed in forma pauperis no later 13 than November 22, 2019. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date will be deemed an 14 admission that no claim can be asserted and may result in a final dismissal of the action without 15 further notice. 16 2. ECF Filing 17 The motion for electronic case filing (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED. 18 3. Financial Disclosures of Judge 19 Hasan also moves for the Court to order the undersigned to provide a copy of her Financial 20 Disclosure Documents filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 4 § 101 et seq. for each year she has 21 submitted them or, alternatively, to “hold proceedings in abeyance” until the Administrative 22 Office (“AO”) of the Federal Courts fulfills his request for such documents. (Dkt. No. 7.) Hasan 23 indicates that he has contacted the AO and requested copies of the undersigned’s financial 24 disclosures for all years on file, and that fulfillment of the request would take 3-6 months. (Id. at 25 20.) 26 The motion is DENIED. The Court agrees that litigants are entitled to obtain financial 27 disclosure documents in order to ascertain whether an assigned judge may have financial conflicts 1 Ud. at 19-22.) Such a request is the appropriate procedural channel for obtaining the disclosures. 2 No stay or abeyance of the instant action is warranted while Hasan awaits fulfillment of his 3 request. Hasan has stated no claim against defendants, nor any basis for avoiding dismissal of his 4 || complaint on the grounds of judicial immunity. Because the only parties named in Hasan’s 5 complaint are judicial officers, and no controversy has been stated against them, the action herein 6 || presents no possibility of a “financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to 7 || the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the 8 || proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455 (b)(4). 9 This terminates Docket Nos. 2, 4, and 7. 10 IT Is SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 28, 2019 2 ¥ 4 A 5 5 ax YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE © [16] & [17] Z 18