Miroyan v. Kai
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-03626
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Miroyan v. Kai, Judge Orrick granted defendants’ dismissal motions, allowed amendment, and denied Miroyan’s temporary-restraining-order motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Miroyan’s claims were subject to the granted dismissal motions, while the defendants did not have to respond to an amended complaint unless the court later ordered them to do so. Miroyan was allowed to amend by October 2, 2019, and his temporary-restraining-order request was denied.
What happened
In Miroyan v. Kai, Michael Miroyan, representing himself, alleged that various defendants conspired against him. He did not provide proof that the complaint had been served, and he did not attend the hearing on his motions.
The court said it appeared to lack the power to hear the case because Miroyan mainly raised state-law claims, the complaint showed that Miroyan and some defendants lived in California, and the complaint did not adequately state a federal claim. The claims against Judge Robert D.S. Kim were also inadequately pleaded and appeared to concern actions he took as a judge, which could be protected by judicial immunity.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied Miroyan’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Because Miroyan was representing himself, the court allowed him to file an amended complaint by October 2, 2019; it stated that it would dismiss the case with prejudice if he failed to do so or if the amended complaint still did not establish federal jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Miroyan v. Kai · No. 3:19-cv-03626
- William Orrick
- Sept. 11, 2019
Background
Michael Miroyan, proceeding without a lawyer, sued various defendants alleging that they conspired against him. The opinion states that he had not filed proof that the complaint was served. After a magistrate judge ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction—that is, the court’s legal power to hear the dispute—Miroyan declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and the case was reassigned to Judge Orrick.
The pending matters were dismissal motions filed by Kenneth Kai, Tae Kai, and Wayne Silver, and Miroyan’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Miroyan did not appear at the September 11, 2019 hearing.
Jurisdiction and claims against Judge Kim
The court said it appeared not to have jurisdiction. Miroyan primarily pleaded state-law claims, and the complaint stated that Miroyan and some defendants lived in California, defeating diversity jurisdiction as pleaded. The complaint also did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
The court identified possible federal claims against Judge Robert D.S. Kim, but found problems with them. There was no evidence on the docket that Judge Kim had been served. The claims were inadequately pleaded because Miroyan alleged Section 1983 and constitutional violations without providing supporting facts. In addition, the allegations appeared to arise from actions Judge Kim took in his judicial capacity in a Hawaii state-court case.
The court explained that judicial immunity generally protects judges from lawsuits based on their judicial actions, including protection from the suit itself rather than only from an unfavorable judgment. The immunity can be overcome when the conduct was nonjudicial or when a judicial action was taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Allegations of bad faith or malice alone are not enough. The court said it appeared that all claims against Judge Kim arose from the Hawaii state-court case he was presumably overseeing.
Ruling
Because there was no adequately pleaded federal claim, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the state-law claims against the remaining defendants. Judge William H. Orrick granted the pending motions to dismiss.
The court gave Miroyan an opportunity to amend because he was representing himself and had not appeared at the hearing, so the court could not ask whether he could allege additional facts that might avoid judicial immunity. Miroyan was ordered to file an amended complaint no later than October 2, 2019. The order states that if he failed to file one, or if the amended complaint remained inadequate to establish federal jurisdiction, the court would dismiss the case with prejudice. The defendants were not required to respond to an amended complaint until the court reviewed it and ordered a response. The court denied Miroyan’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.