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

Filing 10


Download PDF
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

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?