# Mark Mearl Bowersock v. Daniel B. Feldstern > District Court, C.D. California · January 21, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10786073 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, C.D. California - **Decided:** January 21, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10786073 ## Opinion text UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-8322 MRA (AS) Date January 21, 2025 Title Mark Mearl Bowersock, v. Daniel B. Feldstern Present: The Honorable Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge Alma Felix N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: N/A N/A Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On September 23, 2024, Mark Mearl Bowersock (“Plaintiff”), a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a paid Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”) against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel B. Feldstern in his individual and official capacities. (Dkt. No. 1). The Complaint alleges Plaintiff was denied his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when Judge Feldstern made certain rulings against Plaintiff, including denying Plaintiff’ s request for judicial notice.' (Complaint at 8-14 (as paginated on the Court’s electronic docket)). Plaintiff seeks $350,000,000 in damages to remedy the alleged constitutional violations. (Complaint at 6). Since Plaintiff is a prison inmate, his Complaint is subject to sua sponte review and must be dismissed if it is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Plunk v. Givens, 234 F.3d 1128, 1129 (10th Cir. 2000) (Section 1915A “applies to all prison litigants, without regard to their fee status, who bring civil suits against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.”); Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (Section 1915A applies “to all civil complaints brought by prisoners against governmental officials or entities regardless of whether the prisoner has paid the filing fee.”).’ ‘Although not entirely clear from the Complaint, it appears at least some of these rulings were made in response to a petition for resentencing Plaintiff filed pursuant to California Penal Code (“P.C.”) § 1172.6. See People v. Bowersock, 2024 WL 3517422 (2024) (California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Judge Feldstern’s denial of Plaintiff's P.C. § 1172.6 motion). *Additionally, a “trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim[.]” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 335 (9th Cir. 2015) (A “‘trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).’” (citation omitted)). Cv-90(10/088).. ~~ ~—S—S—t<‘<‘;