Hulstedt v. Bonta
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-02003
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hulstedt v. Bonta, Judge Corley granted defendants’ dismissal motion but allowed Hulstedt to amend and denied his other motions.
Douglas Vern Hulstedt, who was representing himself, and defendants Robert Andres Bonta, Laurie Rose Lubiano, and the State Bar of California. Hulstedt may amend his complaint by August 31, 2023.
What happened
In Hulstedt v. Bonta, Douglas Vern Hulstedt, who was representing himself, sued Robert Andres Bonta, Laurie Rose Lubiano, and the State Bar of California. He filed a motion for summary judgment before the defendants answered.
The court treated Hulstedt’s motion as a request for default judgment and denied it because the defendants responded on time. The court also denied his other motions, including requests involving habeas relief, settlement, appointed counsel, and other orders.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted Bonta and Lubiano’s motion to dismiss because the complaint did not clearly connect facts to legal claims and did not satisfy the requirement for a short, understandable statement. Hulstedt may amend the complaint by August 31, 2023; the court warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hulstedt v. Bonta · No. 3:23-cv-02003
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 26, 2023
Background
Douglas Vern Hulstedt, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Attorney General Robert Andres Bonta, Laurie Rose Lubiano, and the State Bar of California. Hulstedt filed a motion for summary judgment before the defendants answered. Bonta and Lubiano moved to dismiss the complaint. The court also considered Hulstedt’s numerous other filings.
Rulings on Hulstedt’s Motions
The court interpreted Hulstedt’s summary-judgment motion as a motion for default judgment and denied it. The court found that the defendants had waived service, had until June 26, 2023, to respond, and had timely opposed Hulstedt’s motion and filed their motion to dismiss. Therefore, the defendants had not defaulted.
The court denied Hulstedt’s other pending motions, notices, requests for judicial notice, and requests to strike documents. These included motions seeking habeas relief, a court-ordered settlement meeting, appointment of counsel, orders concerning an attorney’s law license, forced representation, directions to the clerk, a writ for a witness’s appearance, and information about a payment deposit. The court described these filings as incomprehensible.
The court specifically stated that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Hulstedt’s habeas requests because, as far as the court could determine, he was not in state custody. It also denied appointment of counsel, explaining that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case and that, under the circumstances, Hulstedt was unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Motion to Dismiss
The court granted Bonta and Lubiano’s motion to dismiss. It explained that although courts read complaints by people without lawyers generously, that approach cannot supply essential claim elements that were never pleaded. Hulstedt’s complaint referred to legal terms including provisions of Title 5 of the United States Code, declaratory relief, due process, and perjury, but it did not connect specific facts to a legal theory. The court also declined to address a possible request for an order requiring state officials to reinstate Hulstedt’s medical license because Hulstedt’s exact request was unclear and the court would not speculate about unpleaded claims.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court granted Hulstedt leave to amend his complaint by August 31, 2023. It warned that an incomprehensible amended complaint could lead to dismissal without further leave to amend. The order states that if no amended complaint was filed by that date, the case would be dismissed with prejudice. The order disposed of the motions identified in docket entries 3, 9, 10, 11, 36, 38, 44, 45, 46, 55, and 59.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.