John Jeffery Cast v. Sonoma County

Filing 29

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Show Cause Response due by 8/31/2017. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/15/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN JEFFERY CAST, Case No. 16-cv-07334-RS Plaintiff, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 12 13 14 COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant. 15 16 Although plaintiff John Jeffery Cast is represented by counsel in this action, he sought and 17 obtained leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The original defendants successfully moved to 18 dismiss the claims against them, without leave to amend. Cast was given leave to amend to pursue 19 the same basic claims as against other parties, but was “strongly cautioned” that: 20 21 22 23 24 any claim against the Superior Court, The Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court, or other court personnel is highly likely to be barred under principles of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Cast must exercise the utmost in good faith before pursuing such a claim. Having received this warning, counsel for Cast elected to file an amended complaint, 25 naming the Sonoma County Court Executive as the sole defendant. The amended complaint does 26 not include any allegations directed to showing that a basis for avoiding immunity exists. Relying 27 on his in forma pauperis status, Cast has not endeavored to serve the amended complaint. 28 The statute effectively requires a court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint to make 1 and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the United 2 States Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 4(c)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Barren v. 4 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the language of § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii) 5 parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6)). As the United States 6 Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage 7 the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying 8 litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 9 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). 10 Here, the amended complaint appears on its face to be barred by immunity, as cautioned in United States District Court Northern District of California 11 the order granting leave to amend. Accordingly, Cast is hereby ordered either to dismiss the 12 complaint or to show cause why it should not be dismissed, in briefing not to exceed 25 pages, to 13 be filed no later than August 31, 2017. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 19 Dated: August 15, 2017 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 2 16-cv-07334-RS

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?