Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03626/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03626-1/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 COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 13, 16

On June 21, 2019, pro se plaintiff Michael Miroyan filed suit in this Court alleging that 

various defendants conspired against him. Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1]. He has not filed 

proof of service of the complaint. On July 18, 2019, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M. Cousins 

ordered Miroyan to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject 

matter jurisdiction. Order to Show Cause [Dkt. No. 8]. Miroyan then declined magistrate judge 

jurisdiction, and the case was reassigned to me. Before me now are motions to dismiss by 

defendants Kenneth Kai, Tae Kai, and Wayne Silver, along with Miroyan’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order.

1

 See Dkt. Nos. 6, 13, 16. Miroyan failed to appear at the hearing on

September 11, 2019. Dkt. No. 21. 

It appears that I do not have jurisdiction over this case. See Order to Show Cause. 

Mioryan primarily pleads state law claims, and the complaint itself makes clear that there is no 

diversity jurisdiction. See Compl. 2, 8 (pleading that both Miroyan and some defendants live in 

California). Neither does the complaint provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 

Miroyan’s only federal claims appear to be against Judge Robert D.S. Kim of the Third Circuit in 

 

1

I declined to hear Miroyan’s motion for a temporary restraining order an expedited basis because 

he had made no showing of irreparable harm. Dkt. No. 17. 

Case 3:19-cv-03626-WHO Document 22 Filed 09/11/19 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

Hawaii, but those claims are inadequate in three respects. First, there is no evidence in the docket 

that Judge Kim has been served. Second, the claims are inadequately pleaded; Miroyan asserts 

that Judge Kim committed Section 1983 and constitutional violations but provides no facts to 

support those claims.

2

 

Third, based on the facts pleaded in the complaint, any allegations against Judge Kim seem 

to stem directly from actions he took in his judicial capacity in the case between Miroyan and the 

Kais in Hawaii state court. See Compl. 11 (referencing 15-0164 Kai v. LR, LLC/Miroyan). 

Miroyan alleges that Judge Kim has “done everything he can to prevent Miroyan from even 

having access to the Courts, let alone a fair day in court.” Compl. 9-11. He says that Kim has 

joined the other defendants’ conspiracy against him, no one will touch his case because he has 

been “blacklisted,” and Kim has held hearings outside Miroyan’s presence. Id. 

To the extent that these claims are based on actions Judge Kim took in his judicial 

capacity, judicial immunity is a complete bar. Judicial immunity protects judges from suit, not 

merely an adverse judgment. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). It can be overcome in two 

circumstances: where the suit stems from nonjudicial actions or where it stems from judicial 

actions taken “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 11–12. “[A]llegations of bad 

faith or malice” are not sufficient. Id. at 11. It appears that all of the claims against Judge Kim 

arise from the case between the parties in Hawaii state court, which Judge Kim is presumably 

overseeing. 

Without a well-pleaded federal claim, I have no jurisdiction to hear the state law claims 

against the remaining defendants. Accordingly, the pending motions to dismiss are GRANTED. 

Given Miroyan’s absence from the hearing, I was not able to ask him whether he can allege 

additional facts to plead a federal claim in a way that could avoid the application of judicial 

immunity. Because Miroyan is representing himself, I will give him the opportunity to amend his 

complaint. No later than October 2, 2019, Miroyan is ORDERED to file an amended 

 

2 Miroyan concedes as much: “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.” Compl. 10.

Case 3:19-cv-03626-WHO Document 22 Filed 09/11/19 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

complaint that properly pleads a basis for federal jurisdiction.3 If he fails to do so, or if his 

amended complaint is inadequate to establish federal jurisdiction, I will dismiss this case with 

prejudice. The defendants do not need to respond to the amended complaint until I have reviewed 

it and ordered a response. The motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2019

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

 

3 Although this Order does not address the adequacy of Miroyan’s state law claims, if this case 

proceeds he will be obligated to plead those claims adequately as well.

Case 3:19-cv-03626-WHO Document 22 Filed 09/11/19 Page 3 of 3