Paul Viriyapanthu et al v. Edmund Brown et al

Filing 45

JUDGMENT of Dismissal in Favor of the Judicial Defendants by Judge James V. Selna. (see document for details). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

FREDERICK B. HAYES (State Bar No. 165315)
[e-mail]
HAYES LAW OFFICE
2447 Pacific Coast Highway, 2nd Floor
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310-388-0310

JS-6

Attorney for Defendants,
TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, KATHRYN M. WERDEGAR,
MING W. CHIN, CAROL A. CORRIGAN, GOODWIN H. LIU,
MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, and LEONDRA R. KRUGER

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA–SOUTHERN DIVISION

10
11

PAUL VIRIYAPANTHU,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.

20

EDMUND BROWN, TANI GORRE
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, KATHRYN
WERDEGAR, MING CHIN,
CAROL CORRIGAN, GOODWIN
LIU, MARIANO-FLORENTINO
CUELLAR, LEONDRA KRUGER,
SHERRI HONER, CHARLES
LARSON, RAYMOND
KALDENBACH, ORANGE
COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,
JOHN NELSON, CESAR
VIVEROS, RICHARD GREEN and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive

21

CASE NO. 8:16-CV-01274 JVS (JCG)
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN
FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL JS-6
DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

22
23

This action came before the Court on the First Amended Complaint of

24

Plaintiff PAUL VIRIYAPANTHU (“Plaintiff”) for Injunctive and Declaratory

25

Relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, TANI G. CANTIL-

26

SAKAUYE, Chief Justice of California; and KATHRYN M. WERDEGAR,

27

MING W. CHIN, CAROL A. CORRIGAN, GOODWIN H. LIU, MARIANO-

28

FLORENTINO CUELLAR, and LEONDRA R. KRUGER, Justices of the
-1[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS

1

Supreme Court of California (collectively, the “Judicial Defendants”).

2

The Court, on October 25, 2016, having entered an Order granting the

3

Judicial Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, it is

4

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that, pursuant to Federal Rule

5

of Civil Procedure 58, Judgment be entered in this action for the Judicial

6

Defendants, and each of them, and against Plaintiff Paul Viriyapanthu as follows:

7

1. As to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for violation of federal rights

8

under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Court does not have subject matter

9

jurisdiction over this claim because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

10

2. As to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for violation of federal rights

11

under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Court does not have subject matter

12

jurisdiction over this claim because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

13

3. Plaintiff cannot cure the jurisdictional deficiency in his pleading, and

14

accordingly, the Judicial Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

15

First Amended Complaint is granted without leave to amend.

16

It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Judicial

17

Defendants, and each of them, are the prevailing parties in this action. Pursuant to

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the Judicial Defendants are awarded their

19

costs in an amount to be determined pursuant to the procedures specified in Local

20

Rules 54-1 et seq.

21
22
23
24
25

DATED: November 04, 2016

By: _________________________
James V. Selna
United States District Judge

26
27
28
-2[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2
3

I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within action. My business address is Hayes Law Office, 2447
Pacific Coast Highway, 2nd Floor, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.

4

On October __, 2016, I served the within document entitled:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24



[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF JUDICIAL
DEFENDANTS

___ PERSONAL SERVICE - by personally delivering the document listed above
to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
___ MAIL - by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope in the
United States mail, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the
firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with
postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date
or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.
_XX ELECTRONIC SERVICE (on registered ECF Users) – by electronic
transmission of the Notice of Electronic Filing through the Court’s transmission
facilities for parties and/or counsel who are registered ECF Users pursuant to the
Court’s General Order requiring same.
Paul Viriyapanthu
Plaintiff Pro Per
This Certificate of Service was executed on October __, 2016, at Hermosa
Beach, California.
By:

/s/ Frederick B. Hayes___
Frederick B. Hayes

25
26
27
28
-3[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS