Missud v. State Bar of California

Filing 3

ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Judge Alsup on 1/22/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
PATRICK A. MISSUD,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 16-80020 WHA

v.

14

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
1–100,

15

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING
PERMISSION TO FILE
LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
/

16
17

In 2012, Attorney Patrick Missud was declared a vexatious litigant. Missud v. San

18

Francisco Superior Court, No. 12-cv-3117, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 137351, at *9–*10 (N.D. Cal.

19

Sept. 24, 2012). In 2013, the vexatious litigant order was expanded to make all of Missud’s

20

filings in this district subject to pre-filing review by the undersigned judge. Missud v. National

21

Rifle Association, No 13-mc-80263, Dkt. No. 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013). In July 2013, he was

22

placed on involuntary inactive status with the State Bar of California. The State Bar decision

23

states that Missud “has total disdain for the legal profession and the judicial process.” In the

24

Matter of Patrick Alexandre Missud, No. 12-O-10026-LMA (Cal. St. B. July 1, 2013).

25

Missud has filed a complaint for defamation, interference with a federal informant, and

26

financial retaliation against a federal whistle-blower and qui-tam relator against the State Bar of

27

California. Missud alleges that the State Bar defamed him by publishing its decision and order

28

in an attorney discipline case on its website. The State Bar is immune from suit for defamation
arising out of the discharge of its official duties. Cal. Civ. Code § 47(a). The remainder of

1

Missud’s claims, to the extent comprehensible, rely on his wildly implausible theory that

2

various judges and governmental entities have conspired to retaliate against him for “exposing

3

rampant Bar Member, Bar Official, defendants’ and judicial corruption from multiple states’

4

County to 9th Circuit Court$.”

5

Missud’s proposed complaint is completely frivolous. Permission to file this complaint

6

against the State Bar of California is DENIED. The complaint is DISMISSED and the Clerk shall

7

please RETURN Missud’s papers to him and CLOSE THE FILE.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: January 22, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2