Lewis v. U.S. District Court for Northern District of California

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

GARY LEWIS,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 13-747 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendants.

13

/

14
On February 20, 2013, plaintiff Gary Lewis filed a complaint against the United States District
15
Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint contains several references to property
16
being taken or stolen, and also contains what appear to be references to a pending lawsuit filed by
17
plaintiff, Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security, 12-cv-4258-KAW (N.D. Cal.). The complaint states
18
that plaintiff is alleging claims for fraud, obstruction of justice, and harassment, as well as for a violation
19

of “California Legal Ethics Law,” California Civil Code Section 430.10,1 and the Social Security Act

20
of 1935. The complaint seeks $30 million in damages. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed
21
in forma pauperis.
22
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
23
pauperis if the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim.

See 28 U.S.C.

24
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim for several reasons.
25
As an initial matter, plaintiff is advised that “[j]udges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts
26
27
28

1

This appears to be a typographical error as there is no such section of the California Civil
Code. However, the California Code of Civil Procedure contains a Section 430.10, which sets forth the
objections that a defendant may assert to a complaint or a cross-complaint in state court.

1

taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986).

2

Thus, if plaintiff seeks to allege claims against Magistrate Judge Westmore (or the court) based upon

3

rulings in Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security, 12-cv-4258-KAW (N.D. Cal.), those claims would

4

be barred. In addition, the complaint is deficient because the complaint simply lists claims that plaintiff

5

wishes to allege, but does not allege any facts in support of each of the claims. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

6

complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2). See Lopez v.

7

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000).
If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, the complaint shall (1) state the basis for federal

9

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

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

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

11

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

12

(4) state the relief that plaintiff seeks. Any amended complaint must be filed by March 28, 2013.

13

If plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff shall supplement the application to proceed in forma

14

pauperis with information about his spouse’s monthly salary, wages or income; plaintiff did not provide

15

this information on the application filed with the Court, and the Court cannot rule on the application

16

without such financial information.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: March 14, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2