Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02284/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02284-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
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

 In their opposition, plaintiffs have expressed an intention 1

not to appear at the hearing which was noticed for March 10, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEN W. ALLUSTIARTE, et al., No. CIV.S-05-2284 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER AND

UNITED STATES, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

This matter is before the court on defendant W. Austin

Cooper’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative for a more definite

statement. Defendant Cooper is an attorney licensed to practice law

in California and is proceeding pro se. Plaintiffs also are

proceeding pro se. The undersigned finds oral argument to be

unnecessary and will consider the pending motion upon the record and

briefs on file. See Local Rule 78-230(h). 1

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 8
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

2

LEGAL STANDARDS

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of the

complaint. See North Star Int’l v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d

578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal of the complaint or of any claim

within it “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or

the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal

theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990); see also Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749

F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the court accepts as true all material allegations in the

complaint and construes those allegations, as well as the reasonable

inferences that can be drawn from them, in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In a case where the plaintiff is pro se, the court has an obligation

to construe the pleadings liberally. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,

1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)(en banc). However, the court’s liberal

interpretation of a pro se complaint may not supply essential

elements of a claim that are not pled. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d

469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to arise out of bankruptcy

proceedings spanning at least two decades. Plaintiffs apparently

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 8
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

 A grand jury investigation of all defendants and the 2

termination of the “corruption of justice” is also sought by

plaintiffs.

 The court “may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as 3

to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are

in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims

against such defendants are integrally related.” Silverton v. Dep’t

of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Omar v.

Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Such a

3

take issue with the disposition of certain real property in those

proceedings as well as with the actions of various attorneys and

judges with whom they interacted during proceedings in bankruptcy

court, district court and on appeal. In their complaint plaintiffs

seek billions of dollars in damages. However, the precise nature of 2

the claims plaintiffs are attempting to pursue is not at all clear. 

In this regard, the complaint is undermined by the absence of

sufficient factual allegations in support of any cognizable legal

theory. The complaint’s allegations do not amount to a short plain

statement of a claim showing that plaintiffs are entitled to relief

or set forth any factual allegations giving rise to federal

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). Although the

Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint fails to

give fair notice and state the elements of the claim(s) plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs have not alleged with any degree of

particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support

plaintiffs’ claim. Id.

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiffs’ complaint should

be dismissed as to all defendants. Nonetheless, out of an abundance 3

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 8
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

dismissal may be made without notice where the plaintiff cannot

possibly win relief.”). The court’s authority in this regard

includes sua sponte dismissal as to both defendants who have not been

served and those who have not yet answered or appeared. See Ricotta

v. State of California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 978 (S.D. Cal. 1998); Bach

v. Mason, 190 F.R.D. 567, 571 & n.7 (D. Idaho 1999)(Garcia, J.).

 The United States appears to be named as a defendant only 4

because plaintiffs litigated this matter in the federal courts. In

any event, the United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit

unless it has waived its immunity. See Dep't of Army v. Blue Fox,

Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 260 (1999); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S.

535, 538 (1980). 

4

of caution, leave to file an amended complaint should be granted as

to defendant Cooper as well as defendants Dennis M. Hauser, Edward

Briseno, Melvin J. CoBen and Martin B. Briffman. Although it appears

highly unlikely, at least at this very early stage of the proceedings

it is conceivable that plaintiffs may be able to allege facts in

support of a cognizable claim as these individual defendants.

On the other hand, the undersigned will recommend that all

other defendants be dismissed with prejudice. As they are named in

the caption of the complaint, this includes the following defendants:

United States; U.S. Court of Appeals for The

Ninth Circuit; United States District for The

Eastern District of California; Lawrence L.

Karlton Judge, Spouse, and Heirs; Edward J.

Garcia (J. Retired) Spouse and Heirs; U.S.

Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of

California; Loren S. Dahl (J. Retired), Spouse,

and Heirs; and David E. Russell (J. Retired)

Spouse and Heirs.

Those defendants are current or former judges of the local federal

bankruptcy, district or appellate courts. While plaintiffs’ 4

complaint is difficult to decipher, it is at least clear that the

conduct complained of as to these defendants stems from functions

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 8
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

 Unincorporated associations, including trusts, must appear in 5

court through a licensed attorney. See Rowland v. California Men's

Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United

States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). See also Church of the

New Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Likewise, a trustee may not appear pro se as a trust’s legal

representative. C.E. Pope, 818 F.2d 696 (dismissing complaint signed

only by nonlawyer trustee). It also is a general rule that a

corporation can appear only through an attorney. See Taylor v.

Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

5

normally performed by judges. Plaintiffs dealt with these defendants

in their judicial capacity and it cannot be said that defendants’

actions were taken in the absence of jurisdiction. Thus, these

defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity with respect to

plaintiffs’ claim against them. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9

(1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386

U.S. 547 (1967); Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965-68

(9th Cir. 1999); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 866-67 (9th Cir.

1992). Therefore, leave to amend should not be granted as to the

judicial defendants.

The undersigned will also recommend that plaintiffs

“Allustiarte Trusts (3)” and “Allustiarte Brothers by Gregory R.

Allustiarte” be dismissed from this action. Only plaintiffs Ben W.

Allustiarte and Linda M. Allustiarte have signed the complaint. One

pro se litigant cannot represent another pro se litigant. See Johns

v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) ("While a

non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority

to appear as an attorney for others than himself.") (internal

quotations and citation omitted). Moreover, a trust can only appear

in an action through counsel.5

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 5 of 8
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

6

Finally, if the findings and recommendations herein are

adopted and plaintiffs Ben W. Allustiarte and Linda M. Allustiarte

choose to continue to pursue this action by filing an amended

complaint, plaintiffs are advised that they must set forth the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Moreover, any

amended complaint must include clear and concise factual allegations

describing the events which underlie plaintiffs’ claims.

In addition, plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make any amended complaint

complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

1967). Once plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the complaint no

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any

amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary factual

description will likely be dismissed.

Plaintiffs are forewarned that the failure to file an

amended complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on

defendant’s motion to dismiss set for March 10, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

is vacated.

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant W. Austin Cooper’s motion to dismiss be

granted;

2. Plaintiffs Ben W. Allustiarte and Linda M. Allustiarte 

be granted leave to file an amended complaint as to defendants Dennis

M. Hauser, Edward Briseno, Melvin J. CoBen and Martin B. Briffman

only;

3. Plaintiffs “Allustiarte Trusts (3)” and “Allustiarte

Brothers by Gregory R. Allustiarte” be dismissed;

4. The United States and all judicial defendants

identified above be dismissed with prejudice; and

5. Plaintiffs Ben W. Allustiarte and Linda M. Allustiarte

be directed to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of

any order adopting these findings and recommendations if they elect

to pursue this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 9, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1/orders.prose/allustiarte2284.f&r.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/09/06 Page 8 of 8