Nordin v. Scott
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-04717
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Nordin v. Scott, Judge Donato dismissed Nordin’s amended civil-rights complaint with prejudice because it remained implausible after amendment.
Jason Nicholas Nordin’s case was dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the Superior Court judge and private defendants named in the complaint by ending the case against them.
What happened
In Nordin v. Scott, the court had previously dismissed Jason Nicholas Nordin’s original complaint and allowed him to amend it. Nordin was representing himself.
Nordin’s amended complaint was substantively indistinguishable from the original. The court again found that it did not plausibly allege civil-rights claims against the Superior Court judge who handled Nordin’s family-law case or against the private defendants allegedly involved.
Judge Donato dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice because Nordin had already received a full opportunity to amend and further amendment would not cure the allegations’ deficiencies. The case was closed, and the court said no new filings would be accepted without prior approval.
The detailed version
- Nordin v. Scott · No. 3:21-cv-04717
- James Donato
- May 23, 2022
Background
The court had previously dismissed Nordin’s original complaint on several grounds and allowed him to file an amended complaint consistent with that earlier order. Nordin represented himself.
Amended Complaint
The court found that the amended complaint was substantively indistinguishable from the original. It again concluded that the allegations did not plausibly state civil-rights claims against the Superior Court judge who handled Nordin’s family-law case or against the private defendants allegedly involved. The order dismissed the amended complaint for the same reasons given in the prior order.
Disposition
Because Nordin had received a full opportunity to amend and further amendment would not cure the deficiencies in the allegations, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. The case was closed, and the court ordered that no new filings would be accepted without prior approval. The order was entered on May 23, 2022.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.