Striplin v. Superior Court of California, County of Wiley et al

Filing 10

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/27/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

AAREN WILLIAMS STRIPLIN,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 12-6417 SI

Plaintiff,

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA WILEY W.
MANUAL COURTHOUSE TRAFFIC
DIVISION, SHANTELL STOKES,
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, EL
CERRITO,
Defendants.

/

16
On December 18, 2012, plaintiff Aaren Williams Striplin filed a complaint against defendants
17
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Wiley W. Manual Courthouse Traffic Division;
18
Shantell Stokes; and the Department of Motor Vehicles in El Cerrito, California. The complaint consists
19
of several pages of requests for information and documents related to a traffic court case involving
20
plaintiff, as well as a several page statement regarding the traffic court case. The complaint states that
21
plaintiff is alleging claims for fraud, conspiracy, extortion, theft of personal property, character
22
defamation, falsifying documents, and seeks over $1 million in damages. In addition, plaintiff states that
23
he “appeals” several of the findings and actions of the state courts and the DMV. Plaintiff has also filed
24
an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
25
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
26
pauperis if the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim.

See 28 U.S.C.

27
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, the complaint is deficient because it does not allege a basis for federal
28

1

jurisdiction, and from the face of the complaint it does not appear that this Court would have jurisdiction

2

over plaintiff’s purely state law claims. "[The] Rooker-Feldman[doctrine] prohibits a federal district

3

court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court

4

judgment." Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, the complaint

5

simply lists the claims that plaintiff wishes to allege, but does not allege any facts in support of each of

6

the claims, nor does the complaint allege what each defendant did. Finally, plaintiff is advised that

7

“[j]udges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.”

8

Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is

9

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2). See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

11

If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, the complaint shall (1) state the basis for federal

12

jurisdiction; (2) specifically identify the claims that plaintiff is asserting (for example, if plaintiff is

13

suing under a federal or state statute, the complaint shall identify that statute); (3) state, as clearly as

14

possible, the facts giving rise to the complaint, including the dates upon which the events occurred; and

15

(4) state the relief that plaintiff seeks. Any amended complaint must be filed by March 15, 2013.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: February 27, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2