Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03518/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03518-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JUDGE HAMILTON,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-3518 BZ

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On July 6, 2007, pro se plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez filed

a complaint against “Judge Hamilton”, seeking $50 million and

an “alteration of record.” Plaintiff has applied to proceed

in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having

reviewed the complaint and application, I find that plaintiff

has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted,

and I therefore DENY his in forma pauperis application and

DISMISS his complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has applied to proceed with his complaint in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court may

deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss a complaint if it is

frivolous or if it fails to state a claim on which relief may

Case 3:07-cv-03518-MJJ Document 4 Filed 08/03/07 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

1 The court must liberally construe a pro se complaint,

giving the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990);

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623

(9th Cir. 1988). 

2

be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Construed liberally

in his favor, plaintiff’s complaint is largely

unintelligible.1 Plaintiff appears to allege that he was

improperly sentenced or classified as a sex offender by a

state court. From the few details he offers in his complaint,

however, I cannot be sure of the nature of his claim. 

Plaintiff does not specify which “Judge Hamilton” he is suing, 

nor does he provide sufficient facts to determine this basic

fact. Moreover, plaintiff must give defendant fair notice of

the grounds on which the complaint is based. See McKeever v.

Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). In his complaint,

plaintiff provides neither the statutory basis for his cause

of action, nor facts sufficient to inform defendant of the

grounds of his complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore

fails to meet the basic requirement that it state a claim for

which relief can be granted.

Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff seeks to bring a

claim against a state-court judge for actions taken in that

judge’s official capacity, that claim must be dismissed

because the judge would have immunity from suit. See Mireles

v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (“Like other forms of official

immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just

from ultimate assessment of damages”). Additionally, this

Court does not have jurisdiction to stay or alter a ruling of

Case 3:07-cv-03518-MJJ Document 4 Filed 08/03/07 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

a state-court judge, and therefore cannot alter plaintiff’s

record as requested in his complaint. See Exxon Mobil Corp.

v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)

(approving dismissal of “cases brought by state-court losers

complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments

rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and

inviting district court review and rejection of those

judgments.”); Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888,

890-91 (9th Cir. 1986) (forbidding the filing of suits seeking

de facto review of state-court decisions). If plaintiff is

dissatisfied with a state-court ruling, his remedy is to seek

timely and appropriate review through the state court system. 

Because I find that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is DENIED, with

leave to amend his complaint. If plaintiff desires to proceed

with this lawsuit, he must file an amended complaint by

Monday, August 27, 2007. The amended complaint should be a

short, legible statement in plain English that clearly states

the facts that form the basis for his suit against each

defendant. It must also contain claims that are within the

jurisdiction of this Court, and must state the full name of

the defendant. In amending his complaint, plaintiff may wish

to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se

litigants in presenting their case. This manual is available

in the Clerk’s Office and online at: www.cand.uscourts.gov.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that at the time of filing he shall provide a

Case 3:07-cv-03518-MJJ Document 4 Filed 08/03/07 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

writing consenting or declining to consent to magistrate judge

jurisdiction. If plaintiff does not amend or otherwise comply

with this Order, this case will be reassigned to a district

judge with a report and recommendation that it be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Dated: August 3, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Rodriguez v. Hamilton\ORDER DENYING IFP AND DISMISSING.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-03518-MJJ Document 4 Filed 08/03/07 Page 4 of 4