United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO AMEND [Re Docket No. 83]
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Roda and Adil Hiramanek-mother and son, respectively-have filed suit against multiple defendants, including the Santa Clara Superior Court, its judges, and other court employees, asserting that their civil rights were violated. In proceedings before Judge Edward M. Chen, plaintiffs were granted in forma pauperis status, and their complaint was subjected to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) review. Dkt. No. 19. After several amendments and reviews, Judge Chen granted plaintiff's leave to file an amended complaint and instructed plaintiffs to file a short and plain statement of their claims, emphasizing that plaintiff's prior pleadings were more than 60 pages in length which was "not appropriate given the relative lack of complexity in this case." Dkt. No. 78. In response, plaintiff filed a complaint extending over 250 pages with over 25 claims, including numerous claims that are clearly barred by the court's prior Orders on § 1915(e) review. See Dkt. Nos. 19, 36, 39, and 75.
The court could dismiss this action because plaintiffs have failed to comply with Judge Chen's order to file a "short and plain" statement of their claims, however in an effort to move this case forward, the court reviews plaintiff's "Revised Second Amended Complaint, " ("RSAC") Dkt. No. 94-1. The RSAC includes numbered claims 2, 10, 17, and 19-48. Plaintiffs removed numbered claims 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 18 because those claims were previously struck by Judge Chen.
The court strikes various claims as detailed below, and subjects the remaining claim to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) review.
A. Section 1915(e)(2) Review
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss any case in which a litigant seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). "[W]hen a plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis status to pursue a complaint containing both [e.g.] a non-frivolous claim as well as a frivolous claim (within the meaning of § 1915[(e)(2)]), ... [a] court may dismiss that part of the claim that it finds frivolous and allow the plaintiff to proceed to litigation in forma pauperis on the meritorious part of the claim." House v. Belford, 956 F.2d 711, 719 (7th Cir. 1992).
B. Claims struck from the Revised Second Amended Complaint
1. Claims that are duplicative of claims previously dismissed
Judge Chen previously dismissed the Hiramanek's § 1983 and related claims against all state court judges and state court employees. Dkt. No. 19 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 75 at 21. The RSAC includes numerous § 1983 claims against judges and other defendants affiliated with the Santa Clara Superior Court. Specifically:
Claim 10: Unreasonable Searches And Seizures/Unlawful Detention and Use of Excessive Force and Abusive Treatment against County
Claim 17: Unlawful Interrogation without Advice of Rights; Right to Counsel; Entrapment against County
Claim 19: Obstruction and Perverting The Course of Justice, against Judge Clark, and other court personnel.
Claim 20: Failure to Perform Administrative Ministerial Duties, against the state courts and court employees.
Claim 21: Violation of Civil Rights-Threats, Retaliation, Other Unconstitutional Acts, against state court judges.
Claim 23: Violation of Civil Rights-Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, against Judge Overton.
Claim 24: Violation of Civil Rights-Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, against Judges Stoelker and McKenney.
Claim 28: Violation of Civil Rights-Threats, Retaliation, Deprivation of Property, against Judges Mills, Clark, and Takaichi.
Claim 29: Violation of Civil Rights-Threats, Retaliation, Conspiracy to deprive, against state court officials involved in Adil's child custody proceedings.
Claim 30: Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights, against Judge Clark.
Claim 32: Violation of Civil Rights-Prosecutorial Acts and Legal Advice, against Judge Clark.
Claim 34: Violation of Civil Rights-Unconstitutional Child Removal Without Hearing, against judges and court officials related to Adil's child custody proceedings.
Claim 38: Violation of Civil Rights-Malicious Prosecution and Prosecutorial Interference, against Judge Clark and County.
Claim 40: Retaliation to Petition/Right To Redress Grievance, against Judges Clark, Arand, Manoukian, McKenney, Overton, Takaichi, and court personnel.
Claim 41: Violation of Civil Rights, Termination of Parental Rights, against court personnel and persons involved in Adil's child custody proceedings.
Claim 42: Violation of Civil Rights Due Process and Inadequacy of Post-Deprivation Remedies, against court personnel, ...