Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01449/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01449-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

 The Court takes judicial notice of the correct spelling of Judge Robert Atack’s name. 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 2

 Thorp also filed a motion for summary judgment on June 10, 2008, requesting that it be 3

heard on June 20, 2008. Because Thorp’s request did not comply with the briefing schedule set

forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9, the Court did not allow the parties to argue the motion for summary

judgment at the June 20 hearing, and it will not be addressed in this order.

Case No. C 08-1449__________________

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS___________________________________

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 8/19/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BEVERLY THORP,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE ROBERT ATTACK,

1

 Defendant.

Case Number C 08-1449

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 2

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

Plaintiff Beverly Thorp (“Thorp”) brings this action against Santa Cruz Superior Court

Judge Robert Atack (“ Judge Atack”), alleging a violation of her due process rights and asserting

claims pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). Thorp moves for default judgment,

and Judge Atack moves for dismissal. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for default 3

Case 5:08-cv-01449-JF Document 28 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 Thorp also alleges that “Judge Atack has violated so many laws, it would take me a 4

ream of paper just to list them.” Complaint at 13. 

 Although Thorp states in her opposition papers that final judgment was rendered in 5

2007, she requests that Judge Atack be disqualified because she will not be able to receive a fair

hearing or trial before him.

2

Case No. C 08-1449

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(JFLC1)

judgment will be denied, and the motion to dismiss will be granted without leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

Thorp alleges the following. Thorp was a party in Sys.& Serv.Techs. Inc. v. Thorp, No.

CV 155983, a state court proceeding heard in the Santa Cruz Superior Court. Judge Atack

presided over that action after Judge Paul Burdick was disqualified. Thorp alleges that Judge

Atack failed to review the facts presented to him and “refused to accept irrefutable evidence in

the case.” Complaint at 13. Thorp also asserts that Judge Atack’s rulings were “void and that

fraudulent” and consequently that she was deprived of her personal property despite the fact that

she was never charged with any offense or crime. Thorp requests that the Court: (1) disqualify 4

Judge Atack immediately and permanently; and (2) declare all of Judge Atack’s rulings and 5

judgments to be null and void. Complaint at 30. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, and the

Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Leave to amend must be granted unless it is clear that the

complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections,

66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). When amendment would be futile, however, dismissal may be

ordered with prejudice. Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 393 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. DISCUSSION

1. Default Judgment

Thorp claims that she properly served Judge Atack by sending a copy of the summons

and complaint via certified mail to the Santa Cruz courthouse and that Judge Atack did not

Case 5:08-cv-01449-JF Document 28 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 6
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

 Judge Atack filed the instant motion on April 18, 2008, more than thirty days after the 6

alleged date of service.

 At oral argument Thorp stated that she is not seeking to appeal Judge Atack’s rulings 7

but rather to challenge the judge’s conduct. However, her complaint specifically seeks

invalidation of the judge’s rulings.

3

Case No. C 08-1449

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(JFLC1)

respond in a timely manner. Judge Atack contends that this method of personal service is 6

invalid as it does not conform with the requirements of either F. R. Civ. Pro. § 4(e) or C.C.P. §§

415.10 et seq. The Court concludes that it has insufficient information to permit it to resolve this

issue on the merits. For example, Thorp has failed to indicate whether she exercised reasonable

diligence to serve Judge Atack in person or by mail to his usual place of abode. Thorp also has

failed to specify whether she brings this action against Judge Atack in his individual or official

capacity. Neither party has provided information as to whether Thorpe served two copies of a

notice and acknowledgment of service in accordance with C.C.P. §415.30 or as to whether Judge

Atack returned an acknowledgment of service as required for complete service under Cal. Civ.

Pro. §415.30. When service of process is challenged, the party on whose behalf service was

made has the burden of establishing its validity. See, e.g., Hope v. Otis Elevator Co., 389 F.

Supp. 2d 1235, 1242 (E.D. Cal. 2005); Hickory Travel Systems, Inc. v. TUI AG, 213 F.R.D. 547,

551 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Because Thorp has not met this burden, her motion for default judgment

will be denied.

2. Motion to Dismiss

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss an action if it lacks jurisdiction

over the subject matter of the lawsuit. The relief sought by Thorp in this case is a declaration

that all of Judge Atack’s rulings and judgments are null and void. However, with the exception 7

of habeas corpus petitions, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review final state court judgments. 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 n.16 (1983); Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). “[A] losing party in state court is barred from seeking

what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in United States District

Court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal

Case 5:08-cv-01449-JF Document 28 Filed 08/20/08 Page 3 of 6
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 08-1449

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(JFLC1)

rights.” Bennett v. Yshima, 140 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Johnson v. DeGrady,

512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994)).

Thorp also requests that this Court disqualify Judge Atack. This is not a viable claim for

relief in federal court, and in any event Judge Atack is immune from suit for his judicial acts. 

Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1971). The Supreme Court has explained:

Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of

judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their jurisdiction, as

this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher. This

immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and

corruptly, and it is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge,

but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at

liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of

consequences. It is a judge’s duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that

are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense

feelings in the litigant. His errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not

have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging

malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to

principled and fearless decsionmaking but to imitation.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

IV. ORDER

While ordinarily the Court views the pleadings of a pro se litigant with great liberality,

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department,

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), it is apparent both from the complaint and from Thorp’s

responses to the Court’s questions during oral argument that the instant suit is directed entirely

toward Judge Atack’s handling of Thorp’s state court case. Because Thorp does not and cannot

allege that Judge Atack acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction, any amended complaint

also would be barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend. The clerk shall

enter judgment and close the file.

DATED: August 19, 2008

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-01449-JF Document 28 Filed 08/20/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Case No. C 08-1449

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(JFLC1)

Case 5:08-cv-01449-JF Document 28 Filed 08/20/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Case No. C 08-1449

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Beverly Thorp 

P. O Box 2070 

Sunnyvale, Ca 94087 

Troy Bentley Overton troy.overton@doj.ca.gov

Case 5:08-cv-01449-JF Document 28 Filed 08/20/08 Page 6 of 6