Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03626/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03626-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MIROYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAE KAI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-03626-WHO 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

Re: Dkt. No. 27

On September 11, 2019, I dismissed pro se plaintiff Michael Miroyan’s complaint for lack 

of federal subject matter jurisdiction.1 Dkt. No. 22. Miroyan pleaded federal claims against Judge 

Robert D.S. Kim of the Third Circuit in Hawaii, but there was no evidence in the docket that 

Judge Kim had been served, Miroyan had alleged no facts to support the claims, and the claims 

seemed to be barred. The remaining claims were based in state law, and in the clear absence of 

diversity jurisdiction,2I lacked jurisdiction over them. In that Order, I gave Miroyan until October 

2, 2019 to file a first amended complaint. On October 1, Miroyan requested additional time to 

amend; I granted his request in part and gave him until October 16 to file an amended complaint.3 

See Dkt. Nos. 23, 24. 

On October 15, 2019, Miroyan filed several documents. See Dkt. Nos. 27, 28, 29. One is 

titled, “Motion to extend time due to change of circumstances for an additional 14 days to have 

 

1 Miroyan failed to appear at the hearing that day. 

2 The complaint pleads that both Miroyan and some defendants live in California. See Dkt. No. 1 

at 2, 8. 

3 He also appeared, unscheduled, at my Case Management Conference calendar that day; I advised 

him that I had granted him a two-week extension along with permission to file electronically. Dkt. 

No. 26. 

Case 3:19-cv-03626-WHO Document 30 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff file the first amended complaint, w/ the order attached.” Dkt. No. 27. Miroyan wrote that 

he needed more time to draft the complaint detailing a complicated dispute that has been going on 

for years. He complained that Judge Kim should have stepped down from the Hawaii case and 

that he signed a secret order without informing Miroyan. According to Miroyan, “outrageous 

crimes” have been committed against him in state court in Hawaii, and “this Court or the Ninth 

Circuit must delay [Judge Kim] because the guy has to withstand scrutiny and he cannot.” Id. at 3. 

Miroyan also attached a foreclosure judgment in Hawaii case along with an email he sent to an 

address associated with the Hawaii state courts.4 Dkt. No. 28. 

I will dismiss Miroyan’s case with prejudice for four reasons. First, I already denied the 

request that Miroyan made in his most recent filings; in his earlier request, he also asked for a 

November 1 deadline to file an amended complaint, and I ordered that he do so by October 16. 

Despite his contention that there was a “change of circumstances,” Miroyan has presented no 

reasons why I should reconsider that decision. 

Second, I am not persuaded by Miroyan’s assertion that he needs more time to lay out the 

complicated facts of his case. Miroyan is the plaintiff. Even in his original complaint, filed on 

June 21, 2019, he wrote, “The litany of allegations against Robert Kim, whom Miroyan is suing in 

his individual as well as official capacity, cannot all be delineated here but will be in the first 

amended complaint.” Dkt. No. 1 at 10. Accordingly, Miroyan has been aware from the beginning 

that his claims against Judge Kim would require more factual support, and he has had more than 

four months to develop a complaint that properly lays out those allegations. 

Third, as of the date of this Order—later than that of his requested extension—Miroyan has 

not filed an amended complaint. 

Finally, and most importantly, Miroyan’s filings—most notably the judgment from the 

Hawaii case—make it abundantly clear that he is seeking federal court intervention into decisions 

made by a state court judge in a state court case. See Dkt. No. 27 at 3 (“This Court or the Ninth 

 

4 Miroyan also included a notice to the Clerk where he writes that he has “dropped” his urgent 

request for two more weeks to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 29. Based on the other 

filings, Miroyan meant that he dropped off the documents at the Clerk’s Office. 

Case 3:19-cv-03626-WHO Document 30 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 3
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

Circuit must delay [Judge Kim] because the guy has to withstand scrutiny and he cannot.”). The 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars such actions. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (noting that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts “from exercising 

subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment”); 

Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that Rooker-Feldman

barred a claim that “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was 

wrong and thus void”). In addition, in none of his filings does Miroyan allege any facts showing 

that Judge Kim either took nonjudicial actions or took judicial actions “in the complete absence of 

all jurisdiction” in order to overcome the judicial immunity bar. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 

11-12 (1991).

By failing to amend his complaint in the nearly two months since my Order, Miroyan has 

failed to prosecute his case as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). His filings, 

which fail to provide a basis for federal jurisdiction, instead show that his claims against Judge 

Kim are barred. For all of these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2019 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03626-WHO Document 30 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 3