Francois Tabi v. Unknown

Case 2:22-cv-05063-SPG-PD Document 17 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:71

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-05063-SPG-PD Date February 23, 2023

Title Francois Tabi v. Unknown et al

Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P. Gomez Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ORDER OF DISMISSAL

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Plaintiff Francois Tabi brings this § 1983 action against several employees of the Central

District of California. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that the “Central District Court and its clerks

have refused to timely enter and file Plaintiff’s documents.” (Id. ¶ 13). Plaintiff further alleges

that the “Clerks of the Court [ ] have continued to make decisions on matters for which they

have no legal authority and apparently no training or understanding. Compelled by contempt

for the pro se litigant and by a false sense of legal expediency and economy, the District Court

Judges have allowed the Clerks of the Court to engage in unauthorized practice of the law.

These administrative acts have led to constitutional violations for which the District Court

Judges and their underlings have no judicial immunity, and for which they must beat ultimate

responsibility.” (Id. ¶ 23).

A district court may act sua sponte to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim

under Rule 12(b)(6) provided that the plaintiff is given an opportunity to respond. See Reed v.

Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250

F.3d 668, 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)) (“Although ‘[a] trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte

under [Rule 12(b)(6)], the court must give notice of its intention to dismiss and ‘afford plaintiffs

an opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion.’”);

Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 335 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citations

and quotation marks omitted) (“[W]e have recognized that [a] trial court may dismiss a claim

sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [provided that] the district court ... give notice of its

sua sponte intention and provide the plaintiff with ‘an opportunity to at least submit a written

memorandum in opposition to such motion.’”); see also Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc.,

864 F.2d 635, 637–38 (9th Cir. 1988) (instructing courts may dismiss sua sponte a pleading

that fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) without giving plaintiff notice of its intention to

dismiss and an opportunity to respond if “[p]laintiff[ ] cannot possibly win relief” (quoting Wong

v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981)).

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:22-cv-05063-SPG-PD Document 17 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:72

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-05063-SPG-PD Date February 23, 2023

Title Francois Tabi v. Unknown et al

Judges acting within the course and scope of their judicial duties are absolutely immune

from liability for damages under Section 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–55 (1967).

“A judge will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all

jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978) (internal quotation marks and

alterations omitted). “Absolute immunity is not reserved solely for judges, but extends to

nonjudicial officers for all claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions.” Burton v. Infinity

Cap. Mgmt., 862 F.3d 740, 747 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court

for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Court clerks have absolute quasi-

judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an

integral part of the judicial process.”). “The doctrine of absolute and quasi-absolute judicial

immunity is expansive. Grave errors or malicious act alone, or even an improper conspiracy

by judicial officers, do not tear asunder this immunity.” Sanai v. Kozinski, No. 4:19-cv-08162-

YGR, 2021 WL 1339072, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021).

According to the Ninth Circuit, the “commencement of an action by filing a complaint or

petition is a basic and integral part of the judicial process. . . . The clerk of court and deputy

clerks are the officials through whom such filing is done. Consequently, the clerks qualify for

quasi-judicial immunity unless these acts were done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id.

(affirming the district court’s ruling that the court clerks had absolute immunity from damages

where they accepted and filed an incomplete bankruptcy petition and then refused to accept

an amended petition for filing because the chapter designated on the petition was incorrect);

see also Coulter v. Roddy, 463 Fed. App’x 610, 611 (9th Cir. 2011) (court clerk immune for

allegedly directing deputy clerks to refuse to file forms presented by a pro se litigant seeking

dismissal of a civil action); Essell v. Carter, 450 Fed. App’x 691 (9th Cir. 2011) (court clerks

immune for failing to respond to pro se plaintiff’s letters and failing to file various motions and

appeals); Kinney v. Clerk of California Ct. of Appeal Fourth App. Dist., No. SACV 16-02197-

CJC(KESx), 2016 WL 10651054, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016).

//

//

//

//

//

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:22-cv-05063-SPG-PD Document 17 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-05063-SPG-PD Date February 23, 2023

Title Francois Tabi v. Unknown et al

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants took actions which are an integral

part of the judicial process and are well within their jurisdiction. Thus, all Defendants have

immunity for the conduct alleged in the Complaint, so Plaintiff cannot possibly prevail. Based

upon the foregoing, the Court is inclined to dismiss this case with prejudice. Amendment

appears to be futile and there is no possibility that Plaintiff can prevail based upon his

complaint. That said, Plaintiff may provide a written statement, no longer than 15 pages, within

21 calendar days from the date of this Order explaining why this case should not be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, given the well-established law

cited above.1 Failure to do so will result in dismissal without prejudice for the reasons outlined

above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:

Initials of Preparer pg

1 Plaintiff’s motion for permission to effect service of process by publication and request for

clarification are hereby DENIED as moot. (ECF Nos. 12, 15).

Page 3 of 3