Hurt v. Williams, Jr.

Filing 2

ORDER RE: PRE-FILING REVIEW OF COMPLAINT (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

No. C 13-80053 MISC SI

TYRONE HURT,

ORDER RE: PRE-FILING REVIEW OF
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,
v.

Order also to be filed in C 12-4187 EMC

JUDGE ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND,
Defendant.

/

17
18

In an order filed January 11, 2013, Judge Chen of this Court declared plaintiff Tyrone Hurt a

19

vexatious litigant. Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests, C 12-4187 EMC, Docket No. 18. Pursuant to that

20

order, the Clerk of this Court may not file or accept any further complaints filed by or on behalf of

21

plaintiff, and if plaintiff wishes to file a complaint, the Duty Judge must review the complaint to

22

determine whether it should be accepted for filing.

23

On March 11, 2013, plaintiff sought to file a new complaint in this Court. The undersigned is

24

the Duty Judge, and has reviewed the complaint to determine whether it should be accepted for filing.

25

The Court concludes that the new complaint suffers from the same types of factual and legal deficiencies

26

as the previous frivolous lawsuits that led to the declaration of plaintiff as a vexatious litigant. In the

27

new complaint, plaintiff has named as a defendant Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., of the United States

28

District Court for the District of Maryland. Based upon an order attached to the complaint, it appears
that on January 8, 2013, Judge Williams declared plaintiff a vexatious litigant in the District of

1

Maryland, and that plaintiff is subject to a pre-filing order in that district. The complaint contains

2

citations to various statutes, the United States Constitution, Black’s Law Dictionary, and case law, and

3

seeks relief based on unspecified alleged violations of the Constitution.

4

The new complaint is frivolous because, among other reasons,“[j]udges are immune from

5

damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793

6

F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). The Clerk is directed not to accept the new complaint for filing, and

7

shall close this miscellaneous case.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 20, 2013

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2