Huang v. Bell et al

Filing 5

ORDER that Case Be Reassigned along with Report and Recommendation That Case Be Dismissed Without Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 11/6/09. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 11/9/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion. This court is ordering reassignment to a District Judge because, absent consent of all parties, a Magistrate Judge does not have authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See, e.g., Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988). OR D E R, page 1
2 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

YONG TAN HUANG,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TIM BELL & GALE BELL, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 09-5099 PVT ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED ALONG WITH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT CASE BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

On October 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint along with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.1 Based on the Application and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be reassigned to a District Judge2 with the recommendation that the case be dismissed without leave to amend. A federal court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the complaint is: 1) frivolous; 2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks 3) monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In the present case, Plaintiff's pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff asserts numerous allegations against judges of the Superior and Appellate Courts of California, but asserts no allegations against the only named Defendants, Tim and Gayle Bell. To the extent Plaintiff intends this action to be an appeal of his state court action against Tim and Gayle Bell,3 this court lacks jurisdiction. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). "The basic premise of Rooker-Feldman is that `a federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court.' " See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)). This doctrine "recognizes the implicit statutory structure established by Congress, which has determined that the United States Supreme Court is the only federal court with jurisdiction to hear appeals from state courts." Ibid. To the extent Plaintiff intends to bring an action against the state court judges for alleged wrongful acts committed in the course of the state court action, the judges are immune from suit. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir.2004) (state court judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages for acts undertaken in judicial capacity). Generally, a district court must give pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment could cure the defect. See, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In the present case, Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in his complaint through amendment. Thus, leave to amend is unwarranted. Dated: 11/6/09 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

3

See Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (docket no. 2) at 4:3. OR D E R, page 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OR D E R, page 3 /s/ Donna Kirchner CORINNE LEW Courtroom Deputy for copies mailed on 11/9/09 Yong Tan Huang 345 North 5th St. San Jose, CA 95112 to: Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court's Electronic Case Filing system.