Hurt v. Fisher et al

Filing 4

ORDER RE: PRE-FILING REVIEW OF COMPLAINT (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/21/2013)

Download PDF
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 13-80054 MISC SI TYRONE HURT, ORDER RE: PRE-FILING REVIEW OF COMPLAINT Plaintiff, v. Order also to be filed in C 12-4187 EMC HON. D. MICHAEL FISHER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, et al., Defendants. / 17 In an order filed January 11, 2013, Judge Chen of this Court declared plaintiff Tyrone Hurt a 18 vexatious litigant. Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests, C 12-4187 EMC, Docket No. 18. Pursuant to that 19 order, the Clerk of this Court may not file or accept any further complaints filed by or on behalf of 20 plaintiff, and if plaintiff wishes to file a complaint, the Duty Judge must review the complaint to 21 determine whether it should be accepted for filing. 22 On March 11, 2013, plaintiff sought to file a new complaint in this Court. The undersigned is 23 the Duty Judge, and has reviewed the complaint to determine whether it should be accepted for filing. 24 The Court concludes that the new complaint suffers from the same types of factual and legal deficiencies 25 as the previous frivolous lawsuits that led to the declaration of plaintiff as a vexatious litigant. In the 26 new complaint, plaintiff has named as defendants Judge D. Michael Fisher of the United States Court 27 of Appeals and the “United States Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.” Based 28 1 upon material attached to the complaint, it appears that the Third Circuit has revoked Mr. Hurt’s in 2 forma pauperis privileges due to his pattern of abusing that privilege – having filed over 100 frivolous 3 appeals in 2012 alone. Accordingly, the Third Circuit has repeatedly stated that Mr. Hurt must pay the 4 $455 filing fee for any future appeals, about which Mr. Hurt is apparently dissatisfied. The complaint 5 contains citations to various statutes, the United States Constitution, Black’s Law Dictionary, and case 6 law, and seeks $2 million in damages based on unspecified alleged violations of the Constitution. 7 The new complaint is frivolous because, among other reasons,“[j]udges are immune from 8 damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 9 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). The Clerk is directed not to accept the new complaint for filing, and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 shall close this miscellaneous case. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: March 21, 2013 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 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?