Moye v. State Bar of California

Filing 14

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/8/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2014)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

MALINKA MOYE,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-2859 EMC (pr)

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14

Malinka Moye filed more than 17 pro se civil rights actions in a short six-week period while

15

he was in custody at the San Francisco County Jail. The Court reviewed the complaints pursuant to

16

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A; in a single order, the Court dismissed 17 of the complaints with leave

17

to amend to cure numerous problems.1 Mr. Moye then filed amended complaints in all 17 actions.

18

The amended complaint in this action is a rambling jumble of ideas and conclusory

19

allegations that is largely incomprehensible. The amended complaint fails to allege “a short and

20

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

21

The amended complaint also alleges fraud but, notwithstanding the instruction in the order of

22

dismissal with leave to amend, does not state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.

23

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Due to the Court’s inability to understand the claim(s) being asserted in the

24
25
26
27
28

1

An eighteenth action filed during that six-week period, Moye v. Napa State Hospital, No. C
14-3121 EMC, alleged that Moye had been admitted improperly to the Napa State Hospital. That
complaint was addressed in a separate order. Mr. Moye also has filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus apparently to challenge the criminal proceedings against him in San Francisco County
Superior Court, Moye v. People, C 14-3729 PJH, and that action is pending. Any claim about his
transfer to Napa State Hospital should be pursued in Case No. C. 14-3121 EMC, and any challenge
to the lawfulness of his custody should be brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

amended complaint, the Court cannot determine whether the amended complaint cures any of the

2

other problems identified in the order of dismissal with leave to amend. Further leave to amend will

3

not be granted because it would be futile: the order of dismissal with leave to amend identified the

4

deficiencies in the original complaint and Mr. Moye was unable or unwilling to cure them in his

5

amended complaint. There is no reason to believe that, with further leave to amend, he would be

6

able to present a coherent statement of his claim(s).

7

The action must be dismissed for the additional reason that the defendant has Eleventh

8

Amendment immunity. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars from the federal

9

courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of any
foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). Eleventh

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state agency. See Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of

12

Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of Corrections and California

13

Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Allison v. Cal. Adult

14

Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (California Adult Authority and San Quentin State Prison

15

not persons within meaning of Civil Rights Act). The lone defendant in this action is the State Bar

16

of California, which is an agency of the State of California. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme

17

Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (State Bar is arm of the State and entitled to Eleventh

18

Amendment immunity); see also Tanasescu v. State Bar of California, 569 F. App’x 502 (9th Cir.

19

2014) (“district court properly dismissed [plaintiff’s] claims against the State Bar of California as

20

barred by the Eleventh Amendment”). This action is dismissed because the State Bar of California

21

is an agency of the State of California and therefore has Eleventh Amendment immunity against the

22

suit.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons stated in the order of dismissal with leave to

2

amend, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and

3

because the defendant has Eleventh Amendment immunity from this action. In light of the

4

dismissal, all pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk shall close the file.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: October 8, 2014
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

3