Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05143/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05143-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff’s pending motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. However,

because the amended complaint fails to cure the defects of the original complaint, this Court concludes

that Defendants’ motion is not mooted by the amendment. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARJIT BHAMBRA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN M. TRUE et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5143 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Harjit Bhambra seeks a writ of quo warranto and an order removing

Defendant Judges from their offices, in addition to damages. Defendants have moved to

dismiss.1

 Because the facts of this case are summarized thoroughly in the order dismissing

the related case, see No. 09-4685, we do not repeat that recitation here.

Plaintiff has no standing to pursue the relief he seeks. “Quo warranto is addressed to

preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, not to a correction of what

already has been done under it or to a vindication of private rights.” Johnson v. Manhattan

RR. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502 (1933). The authority to bring such an action based on federal

common law, however, rests exclusively with the United States itself. Id. “There is no

statute delegating to an individual the right to resort to it.” Id. “A private party does not

Case 3:09-cv-05143-CRB Document 26 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2009\5143\Order Dismissing.wpd 2

have standing to bring such a proceeding.” United States v. Machado, 306 F. Supp. 995,

1000 (N.D. Cal. 1969). 

Bhambra alternatively seeks to bring this action under state law, specifically

California Code of Civil Procedure § 803. However, this Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim. As there is no independent basis for federal

subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the case is therefore DISMISSED.

Because Plaintiff failed to cured these apparent defects in his amended complaint,

dismissal is with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05143-CRB Document 26 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2