O'Hagan v. Ursich et al

Filing 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Benjamin H Settle. Plaintiff to show cause by March 24, 2012. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

JAMES J. O’HAGAN,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

CASE NO. C12-5179BHS

v.
GREGORY URSICH, et al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff James J. O’Hagen’s
(“O’Hagen”) complaint (Dkt. 1).
On March 1, 2012, O’Hagen filed a complaint against various defendants. Id. The

17

majority of the defendants appear to be private parties, one defendant appears to be a state

18

court judge, and one defendant is a federal bankruptcy judge. Id. O’Hagen asserts that

19

the Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; various sections of the federal criminal

20

code, 18 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.; and 11 U.S.C. § 548. Id.

21

If the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the

22

Court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Court does not have

23

jurisdiction over O’Hagen’s civil suit under either the criminal codes or the bankruptcy

24

code. With regard to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it appears the only defendant acting under color

25

of law is the state court judge. Judges, however, are entitled to absolute immunity.

26

Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 203 (1992). Therefore, the Court finds that O’Hagen

27
28
ORDER - 1

1

has failed to show that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations in his

2

complaint.

3

O’Hagen must show cause why this Court may have subject matter jurisdiction no

4

later than March 24, 2012. Failure to respond will result in DISMISSAL of his

5

complaint.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED this 7th day of March, 2012.

8
9

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 2