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)

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