United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT RE: DKT. NOS. 6, 13,
WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21, 2019, pro se plaintiff Michael Miroyan filed suit in this
Court alleging that various defendants conspired against him.
Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1]. He has not
filed proof of service of the complaint. On July 18, 2019,
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M. Cousins ordered Miroyan to
show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
federal subject matter jurisdiction. Order to Show Cause
[Dkt. No. 8]. Miroyan then declined magistrate judge
jurisdiction, and the case was reassigned to me. Before me
now are motions to dismiss by defendants Kenneth Kai, Tae
Kai, and Wayne Silver, along with Miroyan's motion for a
temporary restraining order. See Dkt. Nos. 6, 13, 16.
Miroyan failed to appear at the hearing on September 11,
2019. Dkt. No. 21.
appears that I do not have jurisdiction over this case.
See Order to Show Cause. Mioryan primarily pleads
state law claims, and the complaint itself makes clear that
there is no diversity jurisdiction. See Compl. 2, 8
(pleading that both Miroyan and some defendants live in
California). Neither does the complaint provide a basis for
federal question jurisdiction. Miroyan's only federal
claims appear to be against Judge Robert D.S. Kim of the
Third Circuit in Hawaii, but those claims are inadequate in
three respects. First, there is no evidence in the docket
that Judge Kim has been served. Second, the claims are
inadequately pleaded; Miroyan asserts that Judge Kim
committed Section 1983 and constitutional violations but
provides no facts to support those claims.
based on the facts pleaded in the complaint, any allegations
against Judge Kim seem to stem directly from actions he took
in his judicial capacity in the case between Miroyan and the
Kais in Hawaii state court. See Compl. 11
(referencing 15-0164 Kai v. LR, LLC/Miroyan). Miroyan alleges
that Judge Kim has “done everything he can to prevent
Miroyan from even having access to the Courts, let alone a
fair day in court.” Compl. 9-11. He says that Kim has
joined the other defendants' conspiracy against him, no
one will touch his case because he has been
“blacklisted, ” and Kim has held hearings outside
Miroyan's presence. Id.
extent that these claims are based on actions Judge Kim took
in his judicial capacity, judicial immunity is a complete
bar. Judicial immunity protects judges from suit, not merely
an adverse judgment. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11
(1991). It can be overcome in two circumstances: where the
suit stems from nonjudicial actions or where it stems from
judicial actions taken “in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction.” Id. at 11-12.
“[A]llegations of bad faith or malice” are not
sufficient. Id. at 11. It appears that all of the
claims against Judge Kim arise from the case between the
parties in Hawaii state court, which Judge Kim is presumably
a well-pleaded federal claim, I have no jurisdiction to hear
the state law claims against the remaining defendants.
Accordingly, the pending motions to dismiss are GRANTED.
Given Miroyan's absence from the hearing, I was not able
to ask him whether he can allege additional facts to plead a
federal claim in a way that could avoid the application of
judicial immunity. Because Miroyan is representing himself, I
will give him the opportunity to amend his complaint. No
later than October 2, 2019, Miroyan is ORDERED to
file an amended complaint that
properly pleads a basis for federal
jurisdiction. If he fails to do so, or if his amended
complaint is inadequate to establish federal jurisdiction, I
will dismiss this case with prejudice. The defendants do not
need to respond to the amended complaint until I have
reviewed it and ordered a response. The motion for a
temporary restraining order is DENIED.
IS SO ORDERED.
 I declined to hear Miroyan's
motion for a temporary restraining order an expedited basis
because he had made no showing of irreparable harm. Dkt. No.
 Miroyan concedes as much: “The
litany of allegations against Robert Kim, whom Miroyan is
suing in his individual as well as official capacity, cannot
all be delineated here but will be in the first amended
complaint.” Compl. 10.
 Although this Order does not address
the adequacy of Miroyan's state law claims, if this case
proceeds he will be obligated to plead those ...