The opinion
1
2
3
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 GUVEN UZUN, Case No. 26-cv-00756-CRB
9 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
10 v.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
GRANTING MOTIONS TO
11 ROCHELLE C. EAST, et al., DISMISS
12 Defendants.
13 Plaintiff Guven Uzun, proceeding pro se, filed an action against the San Francisco
14 Sheriff’s Office, deputy sheriff Leonard Maloney, and Judge Rochelle East (collectively,
15 “Defendants”). Compl. (dkt. 1). His lawsuit stems from his efforts in state court to
16 challenge the revocation of his medical license by the Medical Board of California. See id.
17 ¶ 11. Uzun asks this Court for a preliminary injunction to immediately reinstate his
18 medical license. MPI (dkt. 13). Defendants also move to dismiss. The San Francisco
19 Sheriff’s Office and Maloney (together, “Sheriffs”) argue that Uzun fails to state his
20 claims. Sheriffs MTD (dkt. 5). Judge East primarily argues that the Court lacks subject-
21 matter jurisdiction and that she is protected by judicial immunity. East MTD (dkt. 9). The
22 Court DENIES Uzun’s motion for a preliminary injunction and GRANTS both motions to
23 dismiss.1
24 I. BACKGROUND
25 A. Factual Background
26 Guven Uzun was a board-certified neurologist until 2017, when the Medical Board
27
1 of California revoked his certifications. Compl. ¶ 9. In 2022, Uzun asked the Medical
2 Board to reinstate his license, but an administrative law judge denied his petition—with the
3 Medical Board adopting the decision. Id. ¶ 10. Uzun subsequently sought a mandamus
4 petition in California superior court before Judge East. Id. ¶ 11.
5 Judge East was allegedly short and dismissive during the hearing on Uzun’s
6 petition. Compl. ¶ 12. She cut off Uzun’s counsel’s argument and denied his petition. Id.
7 ¶¶ 12, 14. Uzun sought a new trial, but Judge East was again dismissive of his counsel’s
8 arguments and declined further discussion on the matter. Id. ¶ 14. Frustrated, Uzun told
9 Judge East that she had violated his constitutional rights. Id. ¶ 16. Judge East then orally
10 denied Uzun’s new trial motion. Id. ¶ 18.
11 Five days later and before issuing her written ruling on Uzun’s motion, Judge East
12 filed a police report with the Sheriff’s Office, alleging that Uzun had threatened to
13 firebomb her and the court during the hearing. Compl. ¶ 19. Uzun alleges that this action
14 was not related to Judge East’s role as a judicial officer and was a misuse of power. Id. ¶
15 20.
16 Uzun was later contacted by a federal agent who was investigating Judge East’s
17 report. Compl. ¶ 22. The agent reviewed Uzun’s transcript of the hearing and then closed
18 the investigation, concluding that Uzun had not made the reported threats. Id. The agent
19 told Uzun that he had sought the Sheriff’s Office’s incident report from Deputy Leonard
20 Maloney but had not received any response. Id. ¶ 23. Accordingly, Uzun also asked for a
21 copy of the incident report from Sheriffs but never received one. See id. ¶ 24.
22 After presenting his claims against Defendants to comply with the Government
23 Claims Act, Uzun filed suit. See Compl. ¶¶ 28–31. He brings three claims. First, he
24 brings a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his due process stemming from his
25 hearing before Judge East, Judge East’s police report, and the failure by Sheriffs to provide
26 him with a copy of Judge East’s report. Id. ¶¶ 32–43. He also alleges that Judge East
27 violated his equal protection rights by basing her report on anti-Turkish prejudice and
1 seeks declaratory relief to invalidate Judge East’s order denying his new trial motion. Id.
2 ¶¶ 44–53. And third, he brings a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
3 (“IIED”) against Defendants related to their conduct in state court. Id. ¶¶ 54–58. Uzun
4 also asks for $1 billion in compensatory damages, interest, and punitive damages. See
5 Compl.
6 B. Procedural History
7 After the parties briefed the motion for preliminary injunction and the motions to
8 dismiss, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued a report and recommendation to dismiss
9 Uzun’s second claim for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction with prejudice, as de facto
10 appeals from state court judgments are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. R&R
11 (dkt. 22) at 3. Uzun failed to object to Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation. Uzun
12 later re-noticed his motion for a preliminary injunction, basing it again on his original
13 motion. Dkt. 27. He also filed a “reply” to his re-noticed motion and asked the Court to
14 grant his motion because Defendants did not again respond to his motion.2
15 II. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16 A. Legal Standard
17 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
18 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (internal citation omitted). A
19 party “seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that [it] is likely to succeed on
20 the merits, [2] that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
21 relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the
22 public interest.” Id. at 20 (internal citations omitted).
23 B. Discussion
24 Uzun asks the Court to order Defendants to immediately reinstate his medical and
25 surgical license, enjoin Defendants from non-reinstatement of his certifications arising out
26 of the state court proceedings, and prohibit reliance on false allegations. MPI at 5.
27
1 Essentially, Uzun wants Defendants to give his license back. See id. at 1 (Uzun “moves
2 for a preliminary injunction ordering the immediate reinstatement of his medical and
3 surgical license, pending final adjudication of this action.”).3 But that is something
4 Defendants do not have the power to do. An injunction would only bind the parties, their
5 agents or officers, and anyone in active concert or participation with them. See Fed. R.
6 Civ. P. 65(d)(2). The Medical Board—the entity that revoked Uzun’s license and the one
7 that can reinstate it—is not a party to the case or involved in it. For this reason alone, the
8 Court cannot grant Uzun’s requested preliminary injunction. And as further explained
9 regarding the motions to dismiss, Uzun also cannot satisfy the first Winter factor:
10 likelihood of success on the merits.
11 III. MOTIONS TO DISMISS
12 A. Legal Standard
13 A court should grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
14 12(b)(6) if the complaint does not proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
15 plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim
16 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
17 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In
18 considering a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the material facts alleged in the
19 complaint, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts, as true.
20 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). But “the tenet that a court must
21 accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of
22 action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
23 662, 678 (2009). Courts will dismiss a claim when it is not based on a cognizable legal
24 theory or the plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to support that theory. Balistreri v.
25
26
3 For the first time on reply, Uzun reframes his injunction to require “Judge East to set aside her
decision denying plaintiff’s petition, and to grant plaintiff a new trial on his petition for writ of
27 administrative mandate.” MPI Reply (dkt. 24) at 1. But it is improper for Uzun to move for
completely different relief on his reply. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996)
1 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
2 B. Discussion
3 Judge East centers her motion to dismiss on judicial immunity and the Rooker-
4 Feldman doctrine. See East MTD at 9–20. Sheriffs argue that Uzun fails to state claims as
5 a matter of law. See Sheriffs MTD at 4–6. The Court evaluates each motion on a claim-
6 by-claim basis and GRANTS them both.
7 1. Deprivation of Rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1983
8 Uzun alleges that his due process and equal protection rights were violated by Judge
9 East when she filed a police report after orally denying his motion for a new trial and
10 before issuing her written order to that effect. Compl. ¶¶ 33–43. He asserts that Judge
11 East “failed to recuse herself based on the inherent conflict of interest created by her filing
12 of the report . . . and the subsequent signing” of her order. Id. ¶ 40. And Uzun alleges that
13 Sheriffs violated his due process rights by not turning over a copy of the police report upon
14 request. Id. ¶ 42. His claim fails.
15 a. Judge East
16 Uzun’s claim as to Judge East fails on immunity grounds. To the extent the claim
17 against Judge East is in her official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a shield.
18 See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, (1989) (“[A] suit against a state
19 official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit
20 against the official’s office. As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself.”
21 (internal citations omitted)). It bars claims for money damages against state judges in their
22 official capacities. See Elder-Evins v. Casey, No. C 09-05775 SBA, 2010 WL 3619808, at
23 *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2010) (Eleventh Amendment immunity for state court judges).
24 Judge East also has immunity in her individual capacity. For their judicial acts,
25 state court judges have “judicial immunity if they are sued in their individual capacities.”
26 Blight v. California, No. C-15-3031 EMC, 2015 WL 5569059, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22,
27 2015). “[A]bsolute immunity attaches even if the act is done maliciously or in bad faith,
1 Johnson, No. 19-CV-04136-JST, 2019 WL 5579507, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019). And
2 the “issuance of court orders is a quintessential judicial function.” Id. (dismissing with
3 prejudice claims of racial discrimination through judicial orders). As Uzun’s allegations
4 are premised on Judge East’s denial of his motion for a new trial, absolute immunity
5 attaches here.
6 Although Uzun’s complaint and his motion for a preliminary injunction make clear
7 that he is challenging Judge East’s order, he argues that Judge East’s filing of an allegedly
8 false police report is not a judicial act entitled to immunity. Opp’n to East (dkt. 32) at 4–7.
9 Even if the police report was the ultimate act at issue, Judge East is still entitled to judicial
10 immunity.
11 To determine whether an act is judicial, courts consider the following factors:
12 whether “(1) the precise act is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the
13 judge’s chambers; (3) the controversy centered around a case then pending before the
14 judge; and (4) the events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation
15 with the judge in his or her official capacity.” Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 971 (9th Cir.
16 2021) (citation modified). The police report fits comfortably within this framework. As
17 Uzun himself alleges, the report arose out of a confrontation with him during the hearing
18 on his new trial motion.4 See Compl. ¶ 19; see also Opp’n to East at 7 (arguing that “the
19 report was connected to a case before” Judge East). Other courts have held that similar
20 actions are considered judicial in nature and entitled to absolute immunity. See, e.g.,
21 Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 259 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that where “a judge
22 reasonably perceives a threat to himself or herself arising out of the judge’s adjudicatory
23 conduct, the judge’s response, be it a letter to a prosecutor or a call to the Marshall’s office
24 for security, is a judicial act within the scope of judicial immunity”); Alexander v. Shan,
25
26
4 Uzun argues that the federal agent’s conclusion that he did not make the threats Judge East
reported should change the nature of her act. Opp’n to East at 7. But even malicious intent or bad
27 faith does not change the protected nature of judicial acts. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[A] conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome
1 161 F. App’x 571, 575 (7th Cir. 2005) (judge’s referral for prosecution was a judicial act).
2 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this claim as to Judge East with prejudice.
3 b. Sheriffs
4 Uzun fails to state a claim against Sheriffs because their refusal to turn over a copy
5 of Judge East’s report did not deprive him of a constitutional right. “To prevail on a
6 Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege a deprivation of a constitutionally protected
7 interest.” Boudette v. Singer, 8 F.3d 25 (9th Cir. 1993). Crucially, here, a “plaintiff does
8 not have a constitutional right to demand the police investigate a complaint or produce a
9 police report.” Greenberg v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 19-CV-00490-YGR,
10 2019 WL 4034016, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019); see also Klat v. Wahl, 2025 WL
11 333794, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2025) (failure by police to give records in response to a
12 public records request was not actionable under Section 1983).
13 Uzun’s arguments in opposition are unavailing. He tries to tie his due process
14 rights to the California Public Records Act. See Opp’n to Sheriffs (dkt. 19) at 5. But
15 while “there is a private right of action under the California Public Records Act . . . that is
16 a claim under state law and the action would have to be filed in state court.” Klat, 2025
17 WL 333794 at *2. Uzun also argues that he has the right to petition the government
18 through the filing of a civil complaint. Opp’n to Sheriffs at 6–7. He contends that
19 Sheriffs’ denial of information negated his ability to file a civil action for damages. Id. at
20 7. Uzun, however, fails to explain how this affects his lack of a right to public records or
21 how he would be unable to file an action without the police report. Indeed, the instant
22 action is related to that report. See generally Compl.
23 Consequently, the Court dismisses this claim against Sheriffs with prejudice, as
24 Uzun lacks a constitutional right to demand production of the police report. See Robinson
25 v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 2022 WL 980584, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2022)
26 (“[B]ecause an individual does not have a constitutional right to obtain a police report, the
27 Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant.”).
2. Declaratory Relief
1
This claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as to all Defendants. Uzun
2
essentially asks the Court for a declaration that invalidates Judge East’s denial of his
3
motion for a new trial. See Compl. ¶ 53. As Judge East argues and Judge Beeler
4
recommends, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See East MTD at 20; R&R at 3.
5
The “Rooker–Feldman [doctrine] prohibits a federal district court from exercising subject
6
matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.”
7
Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Uzun asks this
8
Court to review a state court judgment that did not go his way, the Court dismisses the
9
claim with prejudice.
10
3. IIED
11
Uzun alleges that the events in his Section 1983 claim also give rise to a claim for
12
IIED. Not so. Just like for Uzun’s Section 1983 claim, Judge East has judicial immunity
13
in both her official and individual capacities for these allegations. Accordingly, the Court
14
only discusses this claim as it relates to Sheriffs.
15
To state an IIED claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing: “(1) extreme and
16
outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of
17
the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or
18
extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional
19
distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.” Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc., 64
20
Cal. App. 5th 138, 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (citation modified). Uzun fails to allege the
21
first prong.
22
Uzun fails to allege how the denial of a police report upon request is extreme and
23
outrageous conduct. The threshold for such conduct is high. It “must be so extreme as to
24
exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” Smith, 64 Cal. App.
25
at 147. While the question of whether conduct is outrageous is usually factual, courts may
26
resolve it as a matter of law where reasonable minds would not differ. See id. (collecting
27
cases dismissing IIED claims as a matter of law). This case is one such circumstance.
1 Beyond conclusory allegations that Sheriffs’ conduct was outrageous, Uzun does not
2 plausibly show how their denial of a records request could not be tolerated by society. See
3 Compl. 4 55 (alleging Defendants’ conduct “was intentional, malicious, and outrageous”).
4 Moreover, Uzun also fails to allege that Sheriffs intended to cause him emotional distress
5 by their actions. Alleging that Sheriffs acted intentionally is not the same thing. See id.
6 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this claim with prejudice against Judge East and
7 without prejudice against Sheriffs.
8 IV. CONCLUSION
9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Uzun’s motion for a preliminary
10 || injunction and GRANTS both motions to dismiss. All claims against Judge East are
11 || dismissed with prejudice, as amendment would be futile. The Court permits amendment
= 12 || as to the HED claim only against Sheriffs, as amendment may not be futile. Uzun may
13. || amend his complaint by July 10, 2026.5
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
©
2 15 Dated: June 10, 2026 = i ——_
ARLES R. BREYER
16 United States District Judge
7
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I s Uzun also filed a motion to amend his complaint, seeking to add additional allegations and a
28 defendant. Dkt. 30. The Court permits amendment, but Uzun may not reintroduce the same
issues discussed and dismissed with prejudice in this order.