Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80020/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick A. Missud
Plaintiff
State Bar of California
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK A. MISSUD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, DOES

1–100,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-80020 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PERMISSION TO FILE

LAWSUIT AGAINST THE

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

In 2012, Attorney Patrick Missud was declared a vexatious litigant. Missud v. San

Francisco Superior Court, No. 12-cv-3117, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 137351, at *9–*10 (N.D. Cal.

Sept. 24, 2012). In 2013, the vexatious litigant order was expanded to make all of Missud’s

filings in this district subject to pre-filing review by the undersigned judge. Missud v. National

Rifle Association, No 13-mc-80263, Dkt. No. 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013). In July 2013, he was

placed on involuntary inactive status with the State Bar of California. The State Bar decision

states that Missud “has total disdain for the legal profession and the judicial process.” In the

Matter of Patrick Alexandre Missud, No. 12-O-10026-LMA (Cal. St. B. July 1, 2013).

Missud has filed a complaint for defamation, interference with a federal informant, and

financial retaliation against a federal whistle-blower and qui-tam relator against the State Bar of

California. Missud alleges that the State Bar defamed him by publishing its decision and order

in an attorney discipline case on its website. The State Bar is immune from suit for defamation

arising out of the discharge of its official duties. Cal. Civ. Code § 47(a). The remainder of

Case 3:16-mc-80020-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Missud’s claims, to the extent comprehensible, rely on his wildly implausible theory that

various judges and governmental entities have conspired to retaliate against him for “exposing

rampant Bar Member, Bar Official, defendants’ and judicial corruption from multiple states’

County to 9th Circuit Court$.” 

Missud’s proposed complaint is completely frivolous. Permission to file this complaint

against the State Bar of California is DENIED. The complaint is DISMISSED and the Clerk shall

please RETURN Missud’s papers to him and CLOSE THE FILE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-mc-80020-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2