Kavalan v. Clark et al

Filing 46

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 6/3/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ISAAC KAVALAN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 13-00162 JSW
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff,
v.
ATTORNEY NIKKI CLARK, and
COMMISSIONER THOMAS J. NIXON, et
al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

On April 16, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and it concluded

17

that it lacked jurisdiction over this matter. The Court also found that even if it had jurisdiction,

18

Mr. Kavalan had failed to state a claim against the named defendants based on the principles of

19

quasi-judicial and judicial immunity. (Docket No. 32.) On April 25, 2013, Mr. Kavalan moved

20

to vacate the judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(4) and,

21

in the alternative, asked for leave to amend his complaint to name the Superior Court of the

22

State of California, Regina Thomas and Phillip Montes.

23

On April 30, 2013, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, that motion. The

24

Court denied the motion to vacate the judgment to the extent it asked to vacate the order

25

dismissing the claims against Commissioner Nixon and Ms. Clark. The Court did, however,

26

grant Mr. Kavalan leave to amend his complaint to name Ms. Thomas and Mr. Montes as

27

Defendants. (See Docket No. 43.)

28

1

On May 2, 2013, Mr. Kavalan filed a second ex parte motion to vacate the Order entered

2

on April 30, 2013, and he again asks the Court to revisit its decision to dismiss the claims

3

against Commissioner Nixon and Ms. Clark, and asks for leave to amend his claims against

4

those Defendants.

5

On May 8, 2013, the Court denied that ex parte application. In that same Order, the

6

Court reiterated that if Mr. Kavalan wanted to file an amended complaint on the terms set forth

7

in the Court’s April 30, 2013 Order, he could do so by May 24, 2013. The Court advised Mr.

8

Kavalan that if he did not file an amended complaint by that date, the Court would dismiss the

9

case with prejudice and would enter judgment.
Mr. Kavalan did not file an amended complaint by May 24, 2013. Accordingly, for the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

reasons set forth in its Order dated April 16, 2013, and in light of Mr. Kavalan’s failure to file

12

an amended complaint, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES THIS MATTER WITH PREJUDICE.

13

The Court shall enter judgment, and the Clerk shall close the file.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2