Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05800/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05800-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan
Plaintiff
Andrew Hurwitz
Defendant
Jacqueline Nguyen
Defendant
Kim Wardlaw
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MOHAMMAD HAIDER AGHA HASAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KIM WARDLAW, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 19-cv-05800-YGR 

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

APPLICATION; DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND; DENYING ECF FILING; AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR FINANCIAL 

DISCLOSURES OR TO HOLD ACTION IN 

ABEYANCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 7 

Presently before the Court are the motions of plaintiff Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan 

(“Hasan”) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, for permission for electronic case filing, and to 

compel disclosure of judge’s financial interests. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 7.) The motions are all DENIED

for the reasons stated herein. 

1. Denial of In Forma Pauperis Status and Dismissal Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B) 

The Court DENIES Hasan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The application 

submitted by Hasan, signed and dated July 11, 2018, but filed September 17, 2019, does not 

provide sufficient information concerning his present financial circumstances. While the 

information stated therein would indicate that Hasan’s assets and income were insufficient to 

enable him to pay the filing fee at the time of its making, the fact that the declaration appears to 

have been made more than one year prior to the filing of his complaint herein does not permit the 

Court to make a finding that he presently cannot do so. 

Further, the Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action that is: “(i) is frivolous or 

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 

Case 4:19-cv-05800-YGR Document 8 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “[S]ection 

1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, 

Hasan’s complaint incorporates several pages of quotations from a multitude of sources, including 

various opinions of the United States Supreme Court, the Declaration of Independence, 

administrative decisions, a federal statute, legal treatises, and other works. The complaint then 

states a declaration of Hasan’s belief that he has meritorious claims against defendant Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeal Judges Kim Wardlaw, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Andrew Hurwitz,1 and 

asserting that the complaint is not required to state a basis for avoiding dismissal due to judicial 

immunity. (Complaint at 6.) The only allegations in the “Statement of Facts” portion of the 

complaint are allegations that: “1. Judges Wardlaw, Nguyen, and Hu[r]witz injured Mr. Hasan[; 

and] 2. Mr. Hasan suffered from the injuries inflicted upon him by the three Judges.” (Id. at 10.) 

The “Causes of Action” portion of the Complaint states: 

1. United States Constitution 

a. Facts 1 and 2 

2. United States Code 

a. Facts 1 and 2 

3. Common Law 

a. Facts 1 and 2 

(Id.) These allegations are insufficient to state any claim against these defendants. 

Further, as anticipated by Hasan, the judges named as defendants are all immune from suit. 

Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for their judicial acts. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. 

Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 

(13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1872) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 

35 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978) (judges are not “deprived of immunity because the action [they] took 

[were] in error, [were] done maliciously, or in excess of [their] authority”) (quotations and citation 

 1

 Judges Wardlaw, Nguyen, and Hurwitz issued the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s 

September 16, 2019 Order dismissing appeal 19-16722, Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan v. Jeffrey 

S. White. That appeal sought to challenge the August 15, 2019 Order in Northern District Cases 

19-cv-3979 JST, Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan v. Jeffrey S. White, dismissing his complaint 

with leave to amend, which the Ninth Circuit determined was not a final or appealable order. (See

Dkt. No. 18 in Hasan v. White, 19-cv-3979 JST.) 

Case 4:19-cv-05800-YGR Document 8 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

omitted); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judges’ immunity from suit cannot be overcome 

by allegations of bad faith or malice). Such absolute immunity serves a number of functions 

including “protecting the finality of judgments[,] . . . discouraging inappropriate collateral 

attacks[,] . . . [and] protect[ing] judicial independence by insulating judges from vexatious actions 

prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988). To determine 

whether absolute judicial immunity applies, the allegations of the complaint must be clear enough 

to ascertain whether the acts complained of were undertaken in the judge’s role of resolving and 

adjudicating issues, rather than the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that a judge 

may sometimes perform. Cf. id. at 230 (judge not entitled to absolute immunity for his decisions 

to demote and discharge court employee). 

Based upon the foregoing, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Hasan 

shall file any amended complaint and amended application to proceed in forma pauperis no later 

than November 22, 2019. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date will be deemed an 

admission that no claim can be asserted and may result in a final dismissal of the action without 

further notice. 

2. ECF Filing 

The motion for electronic case filing (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED. 

3. Financial Disclosures of Judge 

Hasan also moves for the Court to order the undersigned to provide a copy of her Financial 

Disclosure Documents filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 4 § 101 et seq. for each year she has 

submitted them or, alternatively, to “hold proceedings in abeyance” until the Administrative 

Office (“AO”) of the Federal Courts fulfills his request for such documents. (Dkt. No. 7.) Hasan 

indicates that he has contacted the AO and requested copies of the undersigned’s financial 

disclosures for all years on file, and that fulfillment of the request would take 3-6 months. (Id. at 

20.) 

The motion is DENIED. The Court agrees that litigants are entitled to obtain financial 

disclosure documents in order to ascertain whether an assigned judge may have financial conflicts 

of interest. Hasan has made such a request as of September 18, 2019, according to his motion. 

Case 4:19-cv-05800-YGR Document 8 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 Californi

a

(Id. at 19-22.) Such a request is the appropriate procedural channel for obtaining the disclosures. 

No stay or abeyance of the instant action is warranted while Hasan awaits fulfillment of his 

request. Hasan has stated no claim against defendants, nor any basis for avoiding dismissal of his 

complaint on the grounds of judicial immunity. Because the only parties named in Hasan’s 

complaint are judicial officers, and no controversy has been stated against them, the action herein 

presents no possibility of a “financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to 

the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the 

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). 

This terminates Docket Nos. 2, 4, and 7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 28, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-05800-YGR Document 8 Filed 10/28/19 Page 4 of 4