United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION;
DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
DENYING ECF FILING; AND DENYING MOTION FOR FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURES OR TO HOLD ACTION IN ABEYANCE RE: DKT. NOS. 2, 4,
Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Court Judge.
before the Court are the motions of plaintiff Mohammad Haider
Agha Hasan (“Hasan”) for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, for permission for electronic case filing,
and to compel disclosure of judge's financial interests.
(Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 7.) The motions are all
Denied for the reasons stated herein.
Denial of In Forma Pauperis Status and Dismissal Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)
Court Denies Hasan's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. The application submitted by Hasan, signed
and dated July 11, 2018, but filed September 17, 2019, does
not provide sufficient information concerning his present
financial circumstances. While the information stated therein
would indicate that Hasan's assets and income were
insufficient to enable him to pay the filing fee at the time
of its making, the fact that the declaration appears to have
been made more than one year prior to the filing of his
complaint herein does not permit the Court to make a finding
that he presently cannot do so.
the Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action
that is: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a
district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that
fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, Hasan's
complaint incorporates several pages of quotations from a
multitude of sources, including various opinions of the
United States Supreme Court, the Declaration of Independence,
administrative decisions, a federal statute, legal treatises,
and other works. The complaint then states a declaration of
Hasan's belief that he has meritorious claims against
defendant Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Judges Kim Wardlaw,
Jacqueline Nguyen, and Andrew Hurwitz,  and asserting
that the complaint is not required to state a basis for
avoiding dismissal due to judicial immunity. (Complaint at
6.) The only allegations in the “Statement of
Facts” portion of the complaint are allegations that:
“1. Judges Wardlaw, Nguyen, and Hu[r]witz injured Mr.
Hasan[; and] 2. Mr. Hasan suffered from the injuries
inflicted upon him by the three Judges.” (Id.
at 10.) The “Causes of Action” portion of the
1. United States Constitution
a. Facts 1 and 2
2. United States Code
a. Facts 1 and 2
3. Common Law
a. Facts 1 and 2
(Id.) These allegations are insufficient to state
any claim against these defendants.
as anticipated by Hasan, the judges named as defendants are
all immune from suit. Judges are absolutely immune from civil
liability for their judicial acts. See Mullis v. U.S.
Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388
(9th Cir. 1987) (citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S.
(13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1872) and Pierson v. Ray, 386
U.S. 547 (1967)); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 35
U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (judges are not “deprived of
immunity because the action [they] took [were] in error,
[were] done maliciously, or in excess of [their]
authority”) (quotations and citation omitted);
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judges'
immunity from suit cannot be overcome by allegations of bad
faith or malice). Such absolute immunity serves a number of
functions including “protecting the finality of
judgments[, ] . . . discouraging inappropriate collateral
attacks[, ] . . . [and] protect[ing] judicial independence by
insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by
disgruntled litigants.” Forrester v. White,
484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988). To determine whether absolute
judicial immunity applies, the allegations of the complaint
must be clear enough to ascertain whether the acts complained
of were undertaken in the judge's role of resolving and
adjudicating issues, rather than the administrative,
legislative, or executive functions that a judge may
sometimes perform. Cf. Id. at 230 (judge not
entitled to absolute immunity for his decisions to demote and
discharge court employee).
upon the foregoing, the complaint is Dismissed With
Leave To Amend. Hasan shall file any amended
complaint and amended application to proceed in forma
pauperis no later than November 22, 2019.
Failure to file an amended complaint by that date will be
deemed an admission that no claim can be ...