Malberg v. State of California Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-05245
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Malberg v. State of California Corporation (1933): Judge Gilliam granted dismissal motions and dismissed the case without leave to amend.
Martin Malberg’s case was dismissed, and the named defendants—the State of California and the State Bar of California—received judgment in their favor.
What happened
In Malberg v. State of California Corporation (1933), Martin Malberg sued the State of California and the State Bar of California. He sought an injunction stopping the state’s operations and large amounts of gold, alleging that the defendants were fraudulent and unconstitutional entities.
The court said the complaint was difficult to understand and did not clearly identify what the defendants did, why their conduct was unlawful, or how Malberg was injured. The court concluded that he had not shown the concrete injury required to bring a case in federal court. It also said the claims would likely face protection under the constitutional rule generally limiting lawsuits against a state.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissed the case without leave to amend, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and closed the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
The detailed version
- Malberg v. State of California Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-05245
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 16, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiff Martin Malberg sued the State of California and the State Bar of California. The complaint referred to the defendants as “foreign corporations” and sought an injunction stopping “all corporate operations within the physical boundaries of California State.” Malberg alleged that the defendants were fraudulent and unconstitutional entities involved in breach of contract, fraud, deception, and theft from California and its people. He requested “1,788,000 ounces of U.S. Gold Eagles” from each defendant and “1,788 ounces of U.S. Gold Eagles” for himself.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court considered the motions without oral argument.
Court’s Analysis
The court said Malberg appeared to invoke diversity jurisdiction, but he alleged that he was a citizen of California. The court nevertheless assumed that his references to the U.S. Constitution were intended to invoke federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The court found that the complaint did not clearly explain the defendants’ conduct, the legal basis for challenging it, or how Malberg was injured. Because of those omissions, the court could not determine that Malberg had suffered a concrete injury. The court explained that Article III standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. The court concluded that Malberg had not met that requirement.
The court also stated that, even if it had jurisdiction and Malberg could state a claim, the Eleventh Amendment would likely bar the suit against the state or its agencies absent the state’s clear consent. The court found no indication that the defendants had waived that protection.
Disposition
The court granted the motions to dismiss. It found that the deficiencies in Malberg’s complaint and later filings could not be cured by amendment, so it dismissed the case without leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.