Miroyan v. Kai

Background

Michael Miroyan, representing himself, sued Tae Kai and other defendants. His complaint included federal claims against Judge Robert D.S. Kim of the Third Circuit in Hawaii. The court previously found that Judge Kim had not been shown to have been served, that Miroyan had not alleged facts supporting those claims, and that the claims appeared to be barred. The remaining claims were based on state law, and the court found no basis for diversity jurisdiction because the complaint stated that Miroyan and some defendants lived in California.

On September 11, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction but gave Miroyan until October 2 to file a first amended complaint. After Miroyan requested more time, the court granted that request in part and extended the deadline to October 16. Miroyan then filed several documents, including a request for another 14-day extension, a Hawaii foreclosure judgment, and an email sent to an address associated with the Hawaii state courts. He did not file an amended complaint.

Court’s reasoning

The court gave four reasons for dismissing the case. First, it had already denied the extension request made in Miroyan’s most recent filings. Although Miroyan had cited a change in circumstances, the court found that he gave no reason to reconsider its earlier deadline decision.

Second, the court was not persuaded that Miroyan needed additional time to describe the complicated facts. The court noted that Miroyan had identified from the beginning that his claims against Judge Kim required additional factual support and had more than four months to prepare an amended complaint.

Third, Miroyan had not filed an amended complaint by the date of the order, which was later than the deadline he had requested.

Fourth, the court concluded that Miroyan’s filings showed he was seeking federal-court intervention in decisions made by a state-court judge in a state-court case. The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a rule that generally prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate courts over state-court judgments. The court also found that Miroyan had not alleged facts showing that Judge Kim took nonjudicial actions or acted without any jurisdiction, circumstances that can affect the usual protection of judicial immunity.

Disposition

The court held that Miroyan’s failure to amend his complaint for nearly two months constituted failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It also found that his filings did not establish federal jurisdiction and instead showed that his claims against Judge Kim were barred. The case was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.