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

Filing 10


Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?