Dorsett v. Fenstermacher et al

Filing 41

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Show Cause Response due by 1/13/2016. Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/21/2015. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANIEL LEE DORSETT,
Plaintiff,

8

SUZANNE FENSTERMACHER, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 9, 17, 38

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
ORDER RE ECF FILINGS

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-04743-JD

Pro se plaintiff Daniel Dorsett filed this action on October 14, 2015 against the Honorable

12
13

Susanne Fenstermacher and Honorable Christopher Bowen, Judges of the California Superior

14

Court for Contra Costa County. Dkt. No. 1. Dorsett has also filed a number of additional

15

documents, which plaintiff presented as attempts to amend the Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 9, 17, 38.

16

The defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint and plaintiff’s additional filings. Dkt. Nos.

17

19, 32.

18

The Court has reviewed the filings of the parties, most particularly the complaint, and

19

cannot find a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Dorsett purports to state federal

20

question jurisdiction based on violations of 18 U.S. Code § 201, a section of the federal criminal

21

code that provides criminal penalties for bribery of federal public officials. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2; id. at

22

24;18 U.S.C. § 201. But plaintiff’s invocation of this statute does not confer subject matter

23

jurisdiction on the Court. Dorsett cannot use this criminal statute to sue another person in a civil

24

action. See Farley v. Santa Clara Cty. Dep’t of Child Support Servs., No. C 11-01994-LHK, 2011

25

WL 4802813, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss without leave to amend

26

because plaintiff’s claims under “Title 18’s criminal statutes are barred as a matter of law”);

27

Sordean v. United States, No. C 94-2387 FMS, 1995 WL 86548, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 1995)

28

(“criminal statutes [including 18 U.S.C. § 201] generally do not provide a private cause of action

1

or basis for civil liability”). Dorsett’s invocation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 in his “amended complaint”

2

similarly provides no basis for jurisdiction in this action. See id.; see Dkt. No. 17-1 (reproducing

3

text of 18 U.S.C. § 241). Plaintiff’s other claims in the complaint are for violation of California

4

penal code and California civil code sections, neither of which confer subject matter jurisdiction

5

on this Court.

6

The Court cannot hear this case unless subject matter jurisdiction exists. Consequently, the

7

Court sua sponte orders Dorsett to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of

8

subject matter jurisdiction.

9

The Court is also concerned about the frequency and volume of filings Dorsett is making
on ECF. For example, Dorsett has filed multiple documents purporting to amend or seek to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

amend his Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 9, 17, 38. In consideration of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court

12

will consider the combination of Dkt. Nos. 1 and 17 to be the operative complaint. Dorsett may

13

not amend the complaint further without leave of this Court. If this case goes forward after the

14

response to the Order to Show Cause, the Court cautions Dorsett to limit use of ECF to required

15

filings or filings truly necessary to prosecute this action.

16

The Court issues these orders:

17

1. Dorsett is to file by January 13, 2016 a statement not to exceed 5 pages that explains

18

why he believes subject matter jurisdiction is present in the operative complaint. If the

19

statement does not adequately show that subject matter jurisdiction exists, the case may

20

be dismissed. No response from defendants is necessary at this time.

21
22
23

2. The hearings set for January 13 and 20, 2016 in this matter are vacated. The Court
may re-set these hearings at a later date, if necessary.
3. Dorsett is ordered to cease making unnecessary filings in this case. He is ordered to

24

file only papers that are authorized and necessary under the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure, the local rules of this district, or the standing orders of this Court. Pro se

26

litigants are expected to abide by these rules, the same as any other parties or attorneys

27

appearing before the Court. If Dorsett continues bombarding the court with tangential,

28
2

1
2
3

unnecessary, and confusing filings, the Court may terminate his ECF privileges.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 21, 2015

4
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3