Hettinga et al v. Loumena et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 12 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on May 18, 2011. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2011)

1
2

**E-Filed 5/18/2011**

3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8

WYLMINA E. HETTINGA, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

Case Number 5:10-cv-02975 JF/PSG
ORDER1 DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
[RE: Doc. No. 12]
TIMOTHY P. LOUMENA, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff Wylmina Hettinga, on behalf of herself and her minor children, filed this action

17

challenging various state court rulings and alleging a conspiracy to deprive her of her right to

18

privacy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and of her property without due process of law in violation

19

of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff subsequently moved for

20

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil

22

action in forma pauperis if it is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees

23

necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma pauperis

24

status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous

25

or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First

26

National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987).

27
28

1

This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. 05:10-cv-02975 JF/PSG
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(JFLC3)

1

In its present form, the complaint appears to be without merit in that it fails to set forth a

2

cognizable claim. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to overturn a state court judgment, the Court

3

is without jurisdiction to hear the action. Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to

4

review the final determinations of state court judicial proceedings. See Doe & Assocs. Law

5

Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). To the extent that Plaintiff alleges a

6

violation of her constitutional rights by officials acting under color of state law, her complaint

7

includes only bare allegations that are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be

8

granted. In addition, “judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil

9

actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are

10

alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).

11

Plaintiff has not shown how this action can proceed as to the defendant judicial officers in light

12

of this judicial immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be

13

denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days of this

14

order, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.

15
16
17

ORDER
Good cause therefor appearing, it is hereby ordered that the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied without prejudice.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

DATED: May 17, 2011

23
24

__________________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2

Case No. 05:10-cv-02975 JF/PSG
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11

WYLMINA E. HETTINGA, et al.,

12
13
14

Case Number 5:10-cv-02975 JF/PSG

Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
TIMOTHY P. LOUMENA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Clerk,
United States District Court, Northern District of California.
On May 18, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of the attached document to each of
the persons hereinafter listed by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope and depositing said
envelope in the United States mail, or by placing said envelope in the outgoing mail delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk’s Office:

22
23
24
25

Wylmina E Hettinga
844 Downswood Court
San Jose, CA 95120
DATED: May 18, 2011

For the Court
Richard W. Weiking, Clerk

26

By:
/s/
Diana Munz
Courtroom Deputy Clerk

27
28
3

Case No. 05:10-cv-02975 JF/PSG
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS