United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING CASE RE: DKT. NO. 27
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 11, 2019, I dismissed pro se plaintiff Michael
Miroyan's complaint for lack of federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 22. Miroyan pleaded federal
claims against Judge Robert D.S. Kim of the Third Circuit in
Hawaii, but there was no evidence in the docket that Judge
Kim had been served, Miroyan had alleged no facts to support
the claims, and the claims seemed to be barred. The remaining
claims were based in state law, and in the clear absence of
diversity jurisdiction,  I lacked jurisdiction over them. In
that Order, I gave Miroyan until October 2, 2019 to file a
first amended complaint. On October 1, Miroyan requested
additional time to amend; I granted his request in part and
gave him until October 16 to file an amended
complaint.See Dkt. Nos. 23, 24.
October 15, 2019, Miroyan filed several documents.
See Dkt. Nos. 27, 28, 29. One is titled,
“Motion to extend time due to change of circumstances
for an additional 14 days to have Plaintiff file the first
amended complaint, w/ the order attached.” Dkt. No. 27.
Miroyan wrote that he needed more time to draft the complaint
detailing a complicated dispute that has been going on for
years. He complained that Judge Kim should have stepped down
from the Hawaii case and that he signed a secret order
without informing Miroyan. According to Miroyan,
“outrageous crimes” have been committed against
him in state court in Hawaii, and “this Court or the
Ninth Circuit must delay [Judge Kim] because the guy has to
withstand scrutiny and he cannot.” Id. at 3.
Miroyan also attached a foreclosure judgment in Hawaii case
along with an email he sent to an address associated with the
Hawaii state courts. Dkt. No. 28.
dismiss Miroyan's case with prejudice for four reasons.
First, I already denied the request that Miroyan made in his
most recent filings; in his earlier request, he also asked
for a November 1 deadline to file an amended complaint, and I
ordered that he do so by October 16. Despite his contention
that there was a “change of circumstances, ”
Miroyan has presented no reasons why I should reconsider that
I am not persuaded by Miroyan's assertion that he needs
more time to lay out the complicated facts of his case.
Miroyan is the plaintiff. Even in his original complaint,
filed on June 21, 2019, he wrote, “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.” Dkt. No. 1 at 10. Accordingly, Miroyan has
been aware from the beginning that his claims against Judge
Kim would require more factual support, and he has had more
than four months to develop a complaint that properly lays
out those allegations.
as of the date of this Order-later than that of his requested
extension-Miroyan has not filed an amended complaint.
and most importantly, Miroyan's filings-most notably the
judgment from the Hawaii case-make it abundantly clear that
he is seeking federal court intervention into decisions made
by a state court judge in a state court case. See
Dkt. No. 27 at 3 (“This Court or the Ninth Circuit must
delay [Judge Kim] because the guy has to withstand scrutiny
and he cannot.”). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine
bars such actions. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d
1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts
“from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a
suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court
judgment”); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474
F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that
Rooker-Feldman barred a claim that “would
require the district court to determine that the state
court's decision was wrong and thus void”). In
addition, in none of his filings does Miroyan allege any
facts showing that Judge Kim either took nonjudicial actions
or took judicial actions “in the complete absence of
all jurisdiction” in order to overcome the judicial
immunity bar. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12
failing to amend his complaint in the nearly two months since
my Order, Miroyan has failed to prosecute his case as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). His
filings, which fail to provide a basis for federal
jurisdiction, instead show that his claims against Judge Kim
are barred. For all of these reasons, this case is DISMISSED
IS SO ORDERED.
 Miroyan failed to appear at the
hearing that day.
 The complaint pleads that both Miroyan
and some defendants live in California. See Dkt. No.
1 at 2, 8.
 He also appeared, unscheduled, at my
Case Management Conference calendar that day; I advised him
that I had granted him a two-week extension along with