Hasan v. Wardlaw

Background

Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan sued Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Kim Wardlaw, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Andrew Hurwitz. The opinion states that those judges had issued an order dismissing an appeal in an earlier related proceeding involving Hasan. Hasan sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, permission to file documents electronically, and an order requiring the assigned judge to provide financial-disclosure documents or pause the case while he waited for the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts to respond to his request.

Filing-fee application and complaint

The court denied Hasan’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it was signed and dated July 11, 2018, but filed on September 17, 2019. Although the information suggested that his assets and income had been insufficient when he made the declaration, the court could not determine from it whether he presently could pay the filing fee.

The court also reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a case filed without the filing fee when the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The complaint quoted many legal and other sources, stated Hasan’s belief that he had valid claims, and asserted that it did not need to explain how to avoid dismissal based on judicial immunity. Its factual allegations stated only that the three judges injured Hasan and that he suffered injuries. The listed causes of action were the United States Constitution, the United States Code, and common law, each relying on those same two factual allegations.

The court held that these allegations did not state a claim. It also explained that judges are generally protected from civil liability for acts performed in their judicial role, even when the acts are alleged to have been erroneous, malicious, or beyond the judge’s authority. The court noted that the complaint would need to be clear enough to determine whether the challenged acts were judicial acts rather than administrative, legislative, or executive acts.

Rulings

The court dismissed the action without prejudice and with leave to amend. It ordered Hasan to file an amended complaint and an amended application to proceed without paying the filing fee by November 22, 2019. The court stated that failing to file the amended complaint by that date would be treated as an admission that no claim could be asserted and could result in a final dismissal without further notice.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Hasan’s motion for electronic case filing. She also denied his motion seeking the judge’s financial-disclosure documents or a pause in the case. The court said that requesting the documents from the Administrative Office was the proper procedure, but that no pause was warranted because Hasan had stated no claim and no basis for avoiding judicial immunity. The order terminated Docket Nos. 2, 4, and 7.