“[T]he judicial process is largely self-correcting: procedural rules, 16 appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for damages actions to 17 prevent unjust results.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he judicial process is largely self-correcting: procedural rules, 16 appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for damages actions to 17 prevent unjust results.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
MAHAMED ALI JAMA,
8
Cause No. C21-1150RSL
Plaintiff,
9
v. ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
10
DEFINITE STATEMENT
KING COUNT[Y] JUDGES, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
On August 31, 2021, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and
14
his complaint was accepted for filing. The nature of plaintiff’s claim or claims is difficult to
15
discern. He repeatedly states that no one is above the law and appears to be challenging
16
17 unspecified judicial decisions: he identifies four federal judicial officers (including the
18 undersigned) and lists four state court case numbers. The only facts conveyed by the pleading
19
involve one or more unsuccessful complaints to the State of Washington’s Commission on
20
Judicial Conduct and an assertion that Mr. Jama spent six months in jail before a charge against
21
him was dismissed. No jurisdictional statement is made, no defendants are identified, and no
22
23 relief is requested.
24 The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28
25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally (see
26
Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)), finds that plaintiff’s
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 complaint is deficient for the following reasons:
2
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the
3
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint will be dismissed unless it
4
states a cognizable legal theory that is supported by sufficient facts to state a “plausible” ground
5
for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Shroyer v. New Cingular
6
7 Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). All well-pleaded allegations are
8 presumed to be true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party. In re
9
Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2013). Although a complaint need
10
not provide detailed factual allegations, it must give rise to something more than mere
11
speculation that plaintiff has a right to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Assuming that the
12
judicial officers identified in the complaint are defendants, they would have to guess what acts
13
14 they are supposed to have committed and how those acts infringed Mr. Jama’s rights. At a bare
15 minimum, Rule 8(a) mandates that plaintiff “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim
16
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
17
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The complaint fails to serve this vital purpose.
18
2. To the extent plaintiff is seeking review of the state court’s judgments in the four state
19
20 court cases mentioned in the complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the
21 Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and Dist. of
22 Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine arises from 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 1257 which grants jurisdiction to review a state court judgment in the United States Supreme
24
Court and, by negative inference, prohibits lower federal courts from doing so. Kougasian v
25
.TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004).
26
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 3. To the extent plaintiff is asserting claims against judicial officers directly, “[i]t has long
2
been established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts ‘done by them in the
3
exercise of their judicial functions.’” Miller v. Davis, 521 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008)
4
(quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1871)). Judicial immunity is “absolute”
5
in that it protects the decisionmaker from exposure to the litigation process in its entirety: the
6
7 official is not only free from the risk of a damage award, but also free from suit. Saucier v. Katz,
8 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). “[V]arious forms of immunity, including . . . judicial, reflect a policy
9
that the public is better served if certain public officials exercise their discretionary duties with
10
independence and without fear of the burdens of a civil suit for damages.” Schrob v. Catterson,
11
967 F.2d 929, 937 (3rd Cir. 1992). Immunity is particularly appropriate in situations, such as
12
this, where procedural or substantive errors can be challenged through a motion for
13
14 reconsideration and/or on appeal: resort to a separate lawsuit is unnecessary. Mitchell v. Forsyth,
15 472 U.S. 511, 522-23 (1985) (“[T]he judicial process is largely self-correcting: procedural rules,
16
appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for damages actions to
17
prevent unjust results.”).
18
19
20 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to issue a summons in this matter.
21 Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before October 26, 2021, an amended complaint
22 which clearly and concisely identifies the defendants, the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, the
23
acts of which each named defendant is accused, how those acts violated plaintiff’s legal rights,
24
and the relief requested. The key to filing an acceptable amended complaint will be providing
25
enough facts that each defendant has sufficient notice to mount a defense and from which one
26
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 could plausibly infer that plaintiff has a viable legal claim and a right to relief against each
2
defendant. The amended complaint will replace the existing complaint in its entirety. Failure to
3
timely file an amended complaint that asserts a plausible claim for relief will result in dismissal
4
of this action.
5
6
7 The Clerk of Court is directed to place this Order Requiring More Definite Statement on
8 the Court’s calendar for consideration on Friday, October 29, 2021.
9
10
Dated this 20th day of September, 2021.
11
12 Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE