Reynaldo Francisco Marques v. Stephan V. Wilson et al

Filing 7

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: After reviewing the complaint, the Court is not convinced that it satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed. Judge Wilson is accordingly dismissed from the action and claims against him are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff Marques to show cause in writing by February 12, 2018 why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Failure to respond as ordered will result in this case being dismissed with prejudice. (iv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV-18-151 PSG

Title

Reynaldo Francisco Marques v. Stephen V. Wilson, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 22, 2018

Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy Hernandez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order to Show Cause why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed

Before the Court is Plaintiff Reynaldo Francisco Marques’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint
against Judge Stephen V. Wilson, Michael B. Learned, Esq., Kristin B. Zilberstein, Esq., and
U.S. Bank Trust (“Defendants”). Dkt. #1. After reviewing the complaint, the Court is not
convinced that it satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Therefore, the Court orders
Plaintiff to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed.
Rule 8(a)(2) requires pleadings to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint is properly dismissed under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to comply with Rule 8 if it does not “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “A trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint
and dismiss it for failure to state a claim, but the court must give notice of its sua sponte
intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and afford plaintiffs ‘an opportunity to at least submit a written
memorandum in opposition to such motion.’” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361–62 (9th Cir.
1981) (quoting Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979)) (citations omitted); see also
Wright v. United States, No. 3:14-CV-03008-CRB, 2015 WL 3902798, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 24,
2015) (applying Wong).
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Stephen V. Wilson violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights by filing orders in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case. Plaintiff’s allegations against
the judge arise solely from Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the judges’ handling of the motions in
that case. Because the doctrine of judicial immunity protects judges from liability resulting from
their judicial actions, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991), such allegations do not form a
viable cause of action and are properly dismissed. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV-18-151 PSG

Date

Title

January 22, 2018

Reynaldo Francisco Marques v. Stephen V. Wilson, et al.

(1872) (“[I]t is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of
justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon
his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.”). Judge
Wilson is accordingly dismissed from the action and claims against him are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff alleges that the two attorneys representing the bank in the bankruptcy action
violated Penal Code § 182, which is a criminal code and not a basis for a civil claim. He also
alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1346, honest services fraud, for their actions as attorneys
during their representation of the bank. That statute applies to “fraudulent schemes to deprive
another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who ha[s] not
been deceived,” see Skilling v. U.S., 561 U.S. 358, 364 (2010). Plaintiff has alleged no facts to
support this claim, and the attorneys for the opposing party did not have a fiduciary duty to
Plaintiff that could be breached pursuant to § 1346.
Plaintiff further alleges § 1983 violations committed by all Defendants for violations of
his civil rights under color of law. That statute requires state action, which cannot be attributed
to any of the Defendants and cannot therefore form the basis of that claim.
The Court therefore orders Plaintiff Marques to show cause in writing by February 12,
2018 why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Failure to respond as ordered will result in this case being dismissed with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2