United States District Court, C.D. California
August 27, 2014
SAI-E JOHARI, Plaintiff,
THE VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA; PRESIDENT PRATT; VERONICA LARA; QUANEETHA HUNT; STEPHANEE DOUGLAS; VICTOR JAMES; SECURITY GUARD CHARLES STEFFIN; SECURITY GUARD AUNDRAY; CANDACE BAKER; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LEROY BACA; LT. MICHAEL IRVING; LT. EDWARD RAMIREZ; LAMP VILLAGE INC.; DIRECTOR STUART ROBINSON; HOSAY MANRINQUEZ; STAFF MAN RAYMOND; STAFF WOMAN LANELL; THE SIMONE APARTMENTS INC.; BERNARD BARNEY, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIMS AND REMANDING STATE-LAW CLAIMS
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On August 13, 2014, Defendants Michael Irving and Leroy Baca removed this action to this Court, invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff Sai-E Johari brings 23 colorful claims spanning from violation of state and federal rights, "reverse male sexual assault (groping), " "heterosexual discrimination by transsexuals, " to "breech of contract." (Not. of Removal Ex. A.)
Johari's wild allegations simply find no basis in law. For example, he alleges that while he was staying at shelter run by the Volunteers of America, the shelter conspired with "21 duly convicted female prisoners" to harass, sexually assault, and violate his right to privacy. Johari then contends that he was evicted from the shelter "for exercising his right of going across the street, standing on public property, and taking pictures of and/or videotaping the duly convicted female prisoners who groped him." He then commences what can only be described as a diatribe on the alleged differences between African Americans and "Black Americans, " comparing and contrasting the two groups and even pontificating about the reason for the Rwandan genocide.
Johari next describes his stint at the LAMP Village shelter. He asserts that the shelter "began promoting a trans-sexual agenda" and allowing the transsexual individuals to view him undress. He contends that when he complained about his alleged rights violations, the staff rebuffed him.
The Court notes that Johari filed an identical action against the same 20 defendants originally in this Court on March 28, 2014. Johari v. The Volunteers of Am., No. 2:14-cv-02398-UA(AGRx) (C.D. Cal. case filed Mar. 28, 2014). Upon receiving the Complaint and an in forma pauperis application, Magistrate Judge Rosenberg recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint as frivolous. Chief Judge King agreed and accepted her recommendation.
It appears that Johari simply filed the same action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Now that the same action has made its way back to this Court, the Court sees no valid basis for rejecting Judge Rosenberg and King's decision to dismiss the action as frivolous. The Court has reviewed the Complaint and agrees that Johari has failed to state actionable claims.
But the action's procedural posture is different this time, as Irving and Baca have removed the case. Since Johari has brought some state-law claims, the Court finds that the most proper course of action is to dismiss all federal claims as frivolous and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims. Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court accordingly REMANDS the state-law claims to Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number BC548793, and DISMISSES all federal claims WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court warns Johari that refiling these same failed claims again will subject him to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.