Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04553/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04553-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMAD HAIDER AGHA HASAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JON S. TIGAR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04553-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF 

FINANCIAL INTERESTS, MOTION 

TO RELATE CASES, AND MOTION 

FOR PERMISSION FOR

ELECTRONIC CASE FILING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, motion for 

disclosure of financial interests, motion to relate cases, and motion for permission for electronic 

case filing (“e-filing”). Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5. Plaintiff Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan brings this 

action against the Honorable Jon S. Tigar and the Honorable Jeffrey S. White of the United States 

District Court, Northern District of California. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the Court DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to 

amend. The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for disclosure of financial interests, motion 

to relate cases, and motion for permission for e-filing.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if it is 

satisfied that the would-be litigants cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action and 

that the action is not frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 

F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court review an in 

forma pauperis complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve the complaint. 

Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 & n.7. The Court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim 

Case 4:19-cv-04553-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

upon which relief can be granted. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 

2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-31 (9th Cir. 2000)). The complaint must 

include a “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). A plaintiff must provide the grounds that entitles a plaintiff

to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally and affords him the 

benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); 

cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). The Court is not, 

however, required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions 

of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th 

Cir. 2001). 

II. DISCUSSION

Even construing the Complaint liberally and affording Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff merely 

alleges, without any factual support, that Judge White and Judge Tigar “injured” Plaintiff, and that 

Plaintiff “suffered from the injuries inflicted by” Judge White and Judge Tigar. Compl. at 8. He 

purportedly brings this action under the “United States Constitution,” “United States Code,” and 

“Common Law.” Id. at 9. These bare, conclusory allegations are clearly insufficient to state a 

claim for relief, as the Complaint is devoid of even a single allegation as to what Judge White and 

Judge Tigar purportedly did to “injure” Plaintiff. 

“Although a pro se litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his 

pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a

defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66

F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet that minimum

Case 4:19-cv-04553-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/16/19 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

threshold and accordingly DENIES his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

DISMISSES his Complaint.

While the Court is doubtful that Plaintiff can successfully amend his claims, the Court 

cannot say at this stage that amending the complaint would be entirely futile. See Lucas v. Dep’t 

of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 

complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). 

However, to the extent Plaintiff’s amended complaint rests on allegations of actions taken by

Judge White and Judge Tigar in their roles as judicial officers, Plaintiff’s case will be subject to 

dismissal with prejudice. Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts 

performed in their judicial capacities. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–55 (1967) (judges 

immune from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial discretion; immunity 

extends to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 

(1978) (judge is not “deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done 

maliciously, or in excess of his authority”) (quotations and citation omitted); Mireles v. Waco, 502 

U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judicial immunity not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice).

Plaintiff’s assertion that he does not have to “explain his legal theory for overcoming a ‘possible’ 

defense of judicial immunity” is clearly contrary to well-established law. 

Plaintiff also moves for the Court to order “its judicial officer” to provide financial 

disclosure documents. Dkt. No. 3. The Court lacks authority to grant the requested relief and 

DENIES the motion. The Court also finds no basis for relating the other pending cases and 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to relate. Dkt. No. 4. The further Court DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiff’s motion for permission for e-filing. Dkt. No. 5.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES his 

complaint. See Dkt. No. 2. The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for disclosure of 

financial interests, motion to relate cases, and motion for permission for e-filing. See Dkt. Nos. 3, 

4, 5. Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by no later than September 30, 2019. Failure to 

file an amended complaint by the deadline may result in the dismissal of the action in its entirety 

Case 4:19-cv-04553-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/16/19 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

without further leave to amend. In addition, Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed with 

prejudice if it only alleges judicial actions by Judge White and Judge Tigar. Alternatively, 

Plaintiff may pay the required filing fee by the September 30, 2019 deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/16/2019

Case 4:19-cv-04553-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/16/19 Page 4 of 4