Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02162/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-02162 JF

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KHALID MOHAMMAD,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-02162 JF

ORDER1 DENYING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[re: docket no. 2]

On March 24, 2006, Plaintiff Khalid Mohammad filed a complaint against Defendants

Superior Court of California and “DPO: Troy Banuelos” and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Plaintiff currently is serving a five-year probation sentence in California. He alleges

that he was charged with contempt for failing to meet the requirement of his probation that he

“maintain gainful employment.” He alleges that, on January 25, 2006, Judge Villareal “imposed

a judgment to punish the plaintiff without due process,” imposed additional punishment with

deliberate indifference and as an abuse of discretion, and denied Plaintiff’s request to testify on

Case 5:06-cv-02162-JF Document 4 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 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

2

 The only paragraph in the complaint that includes allegations involving Troy Banuelos

states:

Troy Banuelos initially filed a petition of contempt against the plaintiff for failing

to “maintain gainful employment.” While affidavit initiating contempt

proceeding may be based upon information and belief, under hearsay rule, such

affidavit is insufficient as evidence to sustain a contempt conviction. Freeman v.

Superior court, 282 P.2d 857, 858 (1955).

2

Case No. C 06-02162 JF

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC1)

his own behalf during sentencing. As the complaint is presently framed, it appears that, while

Plaintiff may be able to pursue remedies for the alleged acts on appeal in the California State

Courts, the instant action against the Superior Court of California fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted because Judge Villareal is entitled to judicial immunity. See, e.g.,

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (“A long line of this Court’s precedents acknowledges

that, generally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages.”). Judicial immunity “is

overcome in only two sets of circumstances. First, a judge is not immune from liability for

nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not

immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” 

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff neither alleges

nor indicates that Judge Villareal’s actions satisfy either exception. Additionally, it is not clear

from the complaint what Defendant Troy Banuelos is alleged to have done that would satisfy the

requirements for stating a claim upon which relief may be granted.2 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil

action in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing

fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma

pauperis status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed pleading that the action is

frivolous or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v.

First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). Without expressing any

opinion as to whether Plaintiff can afford to pay the filing fee, the Court will DENY without

prejudice his application to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the complaint is

Case 5:06-cv-02162-JF Document 4 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 06-02162 JF

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC1)

without merit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02162-JF Document 4 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Case No. C 06-02162 JF

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Khalid Mohammad

3050 Lexington Court

Marina, CA 93933

Case 5:06-cv-02162-JF Document 4 Filed 06/29/06 Page 4 of 4