Hasan v. Tigar
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-04553
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hasan v. Tigar, Judge Gilliam denied several motions and dismissed Hasan’s complaint, allowing him to amend it.
Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan’s case was dismissed with leave to amend, and he was required either to file an amended complaint or pay the filing fee by September 30, 2019. Judges Jon S. Tigar and Jeffrey S. White were the defendants and received the benefit of the court’s explanation of judicial immunity for judicial acts.
What happened
In Hasan v. Tigar, Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan sued Judges Jon S. Tigar and Jeffrey S. White, alleging only that they had injured him. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and filed three other motions.
The court found that the complaint’s unsupported allegations did not state a claim. It denied the request to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It also denied the motions for financial disclosures and to relate cases, and denied as moot the motion for permission to file electronically.
Judge Haywood Gilliam allowed Hasan until September 30, 2019, to file an amended complaint or pay the filing fee. The court warned that an amended complaint based only on actions the judges took as judicial officers would be dismissed with prejudice because judges are protected from civil damages for judicial acts.
The detailed version
- Hasan v. Tigar · No. 4:19-cv-04553
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 16, 2019
Background
Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Honorable Jon S. Tigar and the Honorable Jeffrey S. White. He moved to proceed without paying the filing fee, requested disclosure of financial interests, asked the court to relate other pending cases, and sought permission to file electronically.
Analysis
The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for cases filed without payment of the filing fee. That standard uses the same test as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must provide enough factual matter to make a plausible claim and give the defendants notice of what they allegedly did wrong.
Even reading Hasan’s complaint liberally, the court found no cognizable claim. Hasan alleged only that Judges White and Tigar had “injured” him and that he had suffered injuries, without alleging what either judge had done. His references to the Constitution, the United States Code, and common law did not supply the missing facts.
The court also explained that judges generally have absolute immunity from civil damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities. It stated that this protection is not overcome merely by allegations that a judge acted in error, maliciously, in bad faith, or beyond the judge’s authority. The court did not say that every possible amended claim was already barred, because it could not determine at that stage that amendment would be entirely futile.
Rulings
The court denied Hasan’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It denied the motion for disclosure of financial interests, denied the motion to relate cases, and denied as moot the motion for permission for electronic filing.
Hasan was ordered to file any amended complaint or pay the required filing fee by September 30, 2019. The court stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal without further leave to amend. It also stated that an amended complaint would be dismissed with prejudice if it alleged only judicial actions by Judges White and Tigar. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.