Halajian v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, signed by District Judge Stanley A Bastian on 3/19/2019. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BARRY S. HALAJIAN,

10

Plaintiff, pro se

11

v.

No. 1:14-cv-01998-SAB

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM

14
15

ORDER DISMISSING

On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Verified Civil Complaint for

16 Declaratory Judgment, Other Relief, ECF No. 1, in the Eastern District of
17 California. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and injunctive relief. With respect to
18 the declaratory relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to declare the following:
19

1. As a matter of protected speech Plaintiff may state and record an

20

affirmation that another is in debt to him.

21

2. For purposes of the subject liens or statements, the bonds, oaths,

22

omissions, and errors and constitutions listed thereon are not the personal

23

property of the individuals named therein.

24

3. Criminal negligence or misconduct on the part of a judge or magistrate is

25

not a judicial act, as it relates to judicial immunity.

26

4. To pursue the prosecution of criminals in public office is protected

27

speech.

28

5. To pursue indemnification for property damage caused by the
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM ~ 1

1

misconduct of public servants is protected speech.

2

6. The Plaintiff’s filing of the subject U.C.C. Financing Statements with the

3

California Secretary of State are an exercise of protected speech and rights

4

to due process.

5

Plaintiff also asks the Court to bar Defendant from “further harassment and

6 malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff under 18 U.S.C. § 1521 until such time there
7 merges a clear reason as to why his statements and representations are false. ECF
8 No. 1 at 8.
9 A.
10

Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & (6), the

11 Court has an obligation to sua sponte review Plaintiff’s complaint to determine
12 whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims being brought by
13 Plaintiff, and to also determine whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which
14 relief may be granted.
15
16

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states:

21

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that—
(B) the action or appeal—
(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.

22

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the Court must dismiss any claim over

17
18
19
20

23 which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,
24 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011). Even if the defendant does not explicitly move
25 for dismissal, the Court has a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction sua
26 sponte. Id. Similarly, the Court “may act on its own initiative to note the
27 inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim.” Wong v. Bell,
28 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981). A complaint states a claim on which relief may
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM ~ 2

1 be granted when the “non-conclusory ‘factual content’ and reasonable inferences
2 from that content,” plausibly suggest a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. Moss
3 v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
4 B.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

5

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be

6 granted.
7

1.

Declaratory Relief

8

Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a declaratory judgment. The Declaratory

9 Judgment Act provides that “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its
10 jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate
11 pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
12 seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28
13 U.S.C § 2201. It “was enacted to afford an added remedy to one who is uncertain
14 of his rights and who desires an early adjudication without having to wait until he
15 is sued by his adversary.” Levin Metals Corp v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 799
16 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1986). The phrase “case of actual controversy” refers to
17 the type of “cases” and “controversies” that are justiciable under Article III.
18 Medimmune, Inc. v Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 126 (2007). In order to obtain
19 declaratory relief, the dispute between the parties must be “‘definite and concrete,
20 touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interest’; and that it be
21 ‘real and substantial’ and ‘admit of specific relief through a decree of conclusive
22 character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a
23 hypothetical state of facts.’” Id. (citation omitted). The question the Court must
24 answer is “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there
25 is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests of
26 sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
27 judgment.” Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969).
28

Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish an actual controversy
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM ~ 3

1 between himself and the United States with respect to the specific affirmations
2 Plaintiff is seeking from this Court. Moreover, these questions can be addressed in
3 the pending criminal proceedings and they should not be the subject of a collateral
4 civil proceeding. Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment to test the legal
5 sufficiency of his defenses in the criminal prosecution, rather than present an
6 actual controversy. This is not the purpose or design of the Declaratory Judgment
7 Act. There is no sound purpose in invoking declaratory relief where the only
8 object is a decision on questions pending in the criminal prosecution. Plaintiff is
9 not entitled to a dress rehearsal of defenses in the criminal matter. As such,
10 Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for declaratory relief.
11

2.

Injunctive Relief

12

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the criminal prosecution currently pending in the

13 Eastern District of California, United States of America v. Barry S. Halajian, 1:1414 cr-00208-SAB. As a general rule, equity will not enjoin the enforcement of a
15 criminal statute, even if the statute is later found to be unconstitutional. Argonaut
16 Mining Co. v. McPike,78 F.2d 584, 586 (9th Cir. 1935); Ackerman v. Intern’tl
17 Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 187 F.2d 860, 863 (9th Cir. 1951).
18 The underlying policy for this rule is that “the processes of the criminal law should
19 be permitted to reach an orderly conclusion in the criminal courts where they
20 belong.” Ackerman, 187 F.3d at 868. Although exceptions to the general rule exist,
21 Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that demonstrate the required exceptional
22 circumstances are met. See Bhatia v. United States, 2010 WL 1552840 (9th Cir.
23 Apr. 20, 2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of action seeking relief in
24 connection with a federal criminal prosecution against the plaintiff; finding no
25 extraordinary circumstances alleged that warranted interference with the federal
26 criminal proceedings).
27

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that would entitle him to the injunctive

28 relief he seeks. The United States Supreme Court has instructed that if injunctive
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM ~ 4

1 relief is impermissible, declaratory relief should be denied as well under these
2 same principles. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 72 (1971). This is an
3 alternative reason to find that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for
4 declaratory relief.
Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for declaratory or injunctive

5

6 relief, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over his Complaint. As
7 such, it is necessary to dismiss this action.
8

3.

18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242

9

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, he has no private right of action to bring

10 criminal charges. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are criminal or jurisdictional statutes
11 that provide no private right of action. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092
12 (9th Cir. 1980). Only a federal grand jury or United States attorney may initiate
13 such criminal charges. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim under 18 U.S.C.
14 §§ 241 or 242.
15 C.

Leave to Amend

16

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that leave to amend should be granted

17 “even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the
18 pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lacey v.
th
19 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 926 (9 Cir. 2012). Courts should grant leave to

20 amend unless amendment would be futile or the plaintiff has failed to cure the
21 complaint’s deficiencies despite repeated opportunities. Telesaurus VPC, LLC v.
th
22 Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9 Cir. 2010).

23

Here, it is appropriate to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

25

1. Plaintiff’s Verified Civil Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Other

26 Relief, ECF No. 1, is dismissed.
27

2. Plaintiff shall have until April 27, 2015 to file his Amended Complaint.

28 Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM ~ 5

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to

2 file this Order and provide copies to Plaintiff.
3

DATED this 19th day of March, 2015.

4
5
6
7

_______________________________
Stanley A. Bastian
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM ~ 6