Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00854/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00854-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Berman
Plaintiff
Circuit Court of Montgomery County Maryland
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY 

COUNTY MARYLAND, 

Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-854 DAD-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff John Berman (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

action. Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on June 20, 2016, is currently before the Court for screening. 

Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is 

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

Case 1:16-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 7
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

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims 

must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably 

infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 

S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 

129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

While difficult to decipher, the Complaint in this case appears to concern a “pre-filing 

restriction” filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County Maryland (“Maryland Court”)

prohibiting Plaintiff “from submitting any filing pro se without justification in the Maryland 

Circuit Court.” (Pl’s Compl. ¶ 7, Doc. 1.)

Plaintiff alleges that in 2010, the Maryland Circuit Court appointed Plaintiff “guardian of 

person” Bella Berman, Plaintiff’s Mother. (Compl. ¶ 3.) In July 2012, Plaintiff took Mrs. Berman 

on a trip to California for a medical evaluation and to visit relatives. (Compl. ¶ 3.) In January 

2014, at some time after traveling to California, Judge Robert A. Greenberg and Defendant the 

Maryland Court ordered Plaintiff to “provide the court with the name(s) and telephone number(s) 

of at least one gerontologist, located near Bella’s current residence in California” to determine 

whether it was “safe for Bella to travel by airplane.” (Compl. ¶ 4.) Judge Berman also ordered 

Plaintiff “as Guardian of the Person for Bella Berman” to provide a HIPAA authorization so that 

Judge Berman could “speak to the gerontologist before the gerontologist examines Bella.” 

(Compl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to obtain the requested HIPAA authorization and 

Case 1:16-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 7
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

otherwise comply with the Maryland Court’s order because a medical waiver is a “complex legal 

document.” (Compl. ¶ 6.)

In March 2014, after Plaintiff failed to provide the HIPAA authorization, the Maryland 

Court issued an “Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why Plaintiff should not be held in constructive 

civil contempt of the Maryland Court.” (Compl. ¶ 7). Plaintiff claims that he attempted to respond 

to the OSC but the Court “would not consider his papers” because the Maryland Court instituted a 

pre-filing restriction prohibiting him from submitting any filing without a pre-filing explanation 

or justification. (Compl. ¶ 7). 

On March 21, 2014, Defendant Maryland Court issued an arrest warrant for Plaintiff

ostensibly for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Maryland Court’s order. (Compl. ¶ 7.) 

Plaintiff filed a writ of mandamus challenging the warrant for his arrest and the pre-filing 

restriction, but the writ was denied without comment. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff later filed appeals 

to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and Maryland’s High Court of Appeals but all appellate 

efforts were denied. Plaintiff alleges that he has currently “exhausted all avenues of review in 

Maryland Courts.” (Compl. ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff filed this action on June 20, 2016, in the Eastern District of California on the 

basis of federal question jurisdiction alleging that Defendant Maryland Court denied his right of 

due process by imposing the “pre-filing restriction” without notice or hearing. (Compl. ¶ 10.) 

Plaintiff also alleges that the “imposition of a ‘body attachment’ arrest warrant” was in further 

violation of his due process. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief declaring that the 

arrest warrant was unlawful, and any other “relief the Court may deem just, proper and 

appropriate.” (Compl. ¶ at pg. 6.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Venue is Improper in the District 

An initial review of this action reveals that Plaintiff’s case lacks proper venue. Venue may 

be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and 

the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). “A civil 

action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as 

Case 1:16-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 3 of 7
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

otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, 

if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the 

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if 

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 

790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 

1986). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division 

or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district in or 

division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

The sole Defendant in this action is the Maryland Court which is located in Montgomery 

County, Maryland. Section 1391(b)(1) therefore provides no basis for venue here in the Eastern 

District of California. Plaintiff’s Complaint further concerns events occurring entirely within the 

State of Maryland. Section 1391(b)(2) therefore also provides no basis for venue in this district. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). As explained, Plaintiff alleges that the pre-filing restriction entered 

in the Maryland Court was in violation of his civil rights. The complained of violations therefore 

arose in Montgomery County, Maryland which is situated in the United States District Court for 

the District of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § 100(c)(2). While Plaintiff alleges that he was living in 

the Eastern District of California at the time the pre-filing restriction was entered, it is clear that 

nothing in the complaint connects any claims to this District as no conduct is alleged to have

occurred in the Eastern District of California. Thus, the proper venue for this action, if any, is the 

District of Maryland, Northern or Southern Divisions, but not the Eastern District of California.

See 28 U.S.C. § 100(c)(1), (2); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

Where venue is improper, the Court may transfer a case to a proper venue, rather than 

dismiss, “if it be in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here, however, as discussed 

further below, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to bring claims that are barred by the Eleventh 

Amendment. The Court therefore finds that dismissal rather than transfer to the District of

Maryland is appropriate. See Wilson v. Allied-Barton Sec. Servs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47373

2011 WL 1669005, *6 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2011) (citing King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th 

Case 1:16-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 4 of 7
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

Cir.1992)) (dismissal, rather than transfer, appropriate where the transfer would be futile because 

the case would be dismissed even after transfer).

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (court “shall dismiss” for improper venue), 

the Court RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed.

B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 

Plaintiff’s claims against the Maryland Court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See 

Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff cannot 

state a claim against the “Maryland Court” because it is not a “person” within the meaning of § 

1983. Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 825 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition, arms of the state, such as 

the state courts, are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Simmons v. Sacramento 

County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, to the extent he implicates 

Judge Greenberg, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against a judge based upon his or her rulings in 

Plaintiff’s underlying guardianship proceeding because judges are absolutely immune from suit. 

Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 

Both the Maryland Court and Judge Greenberg are entitled to absolute judicial immunity 

for the acts upon which this complaint is brought. Because the acts which Plaintiff contends 

violated his civil rights are judicial acts for which absolute judicial immunity applies, the Court 

finds that this action is frivolous. See Genthner v. Smith, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31191 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 10, 2016) (finding claims against judges acting within the scope of a judicial 

proceeding to be frivolous as a matter of law). The Court recommends that this action be 

dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a cognizable claim.1

C. Leave to Amend

Although the Court typically grants a pro se plaintiff leave to amend his or her pleading, 

for the reasons stated above, the above-described defects cannot be cured by more detailed factual 

allegations or revision of Plaintiff’s claims. Significantly, Plaintiff’s pleading does not allege a 

 

1

The Court also notes, without analyzing, that Plaintiff’s claims maybe barred by the Rooker Feldman

doctrine. Under Rooker-Feldman, the Court “must pay close attention to the relief sought by the federal-court 

plaintiff.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1213 (2004). If the 

redress that is sought by plaintiffs is to “undo” the prior state-court judgment, the relief is barred.

Case 1:16-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 5 of 7
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

cognizable claim as suits against the Maryland Court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and 

in any event, improper venue in this particular case warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a). Courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the 

opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is 

futile.” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that amendment of the complaint would be futile and therefore 

recommends that this action be dismissed.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed June 20, 2016, be DISMISSED without leave to amend 

for failure to state a claim; and

2. This action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for improper venue; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case 1:16-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 7 of 7