Washington Cases September 10, 2020: O'Hagan v. Washington

Case Description

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner's "Voi Dare of Honorable Ronald B. Lighton and Request for Counsel." Dkt. 12. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining file.

On April 27, 2020, the Petitioner filed this case and an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. 1. On May 19, 2020, Petitioner's IFP application was denied. Dkt. 4. The order also reviewed the Petitioner's proposed complaint and noted that it contained several deficiencies including attempting to have this court review decisions of the state courts contrary

Page 2

to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (from Rooker v . Fidelity Trust Co ., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v . Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983)), attempting to sue judges and courts for ruling against him contrary to their right to absolute judicial immunity, attempting to sue various clerks of the court and prosecutors for actions for which they have quasi-judicial immunity, and attempting to sue private attorneys for civil rights violations, that can only be brought against people acting "under the color of law." Id . That order further stated that "[t]he vast conspiracy O'Hagan alleges is facially implausible. His complaint is not a habeas petition; it is a political screed." Dkt. 4, at 4. Petitioner was ordered to pay the filing fee or file a proposed amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within 21 days and warned that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case. Id .

On June 8, 2020, he filed a pleading entitled "Defendant's Memorandum with Supporting Evidence in Response to Honorable Ronald B. Lighton's May 19, 2020 Order by Declaration of James J. O'Hagan." Dkt. 6. In this 55-page disjointed pleading, the Petitioner discusses errors he believes were in the Court's May 19, 2020 order, asserts that he did not "imply that the Pacific County Tea Party was going to take hostile adverse possession of the former Kenyon Kelley farm with [him]," requests a grand jury to investigate criminal acts, argues that "judges have been unconstitutionally forcing Shari law onto the people." Id . He discusses various legal proceedings that he has been involved in (both civil and criminal). Id . The Petitioner further references elections law, generally asserting that there are problems. Id . He contends that:

[H]e is adamant that if the courts continue to allow [him] to be a political prisoner of the judicial branch by keeping [his] Habeas Corpus complaint from a Grand Jury then the deep state will do it to every other sovereign individual that attempts to address problems within the judicial branches and improve the quality of justice.

Dkt. 6, at 14.

Page 3

On August 18, 2020, the Petitioner paid the filing fee. He also filed the pending motion, entitled, "Voi Dare of Honorable Ronald B. Lighton [sic] and Request for Counsel." Dkt. 12. In this motion, the Petitioner again asserts that he is "a political prisoner of the State of Washington because [he is] a victim of judicial branch corruption." Dkt. 12, at 1. He asserts that various judges and lawyers are involved in "organized crimes" and are now practicing "Shari Law." Id ., at 1-2. He requests that Judge Leighton recuse from the case. Id . The Petitioner also asks for appointment of counsel "that is not beholden to [his] adversary and has been outspoken about addressing the violations to the separation of powers, judicial fraud industry and the subversive attacks on our constitutional trust." Id .

The case was reassigned to the undersigned on August 31, 2020. Dkt. 14.

Motion for Recusal. The Petitioner's motion for Judge Leighton to recuse (Dkt. 12) should be denied as moot. The case has been reassigned to the undersigned.

Review of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. The court has carefully reviewed the complaint in this matter. Because plaintiff filed this complaint pro se , the court has construed the pleadings liberally and has afforded plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v . Los Angeles Police Dep't , 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988).

A federal court may dismiss a case sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Omar v . Sea-Land Serv ., Inc ., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987) ("A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief."). See also Mallard v . United States Dist . Court , 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court would have the power to dismiss

Page 4

frivolous complaint sua sponte , even in absence of an express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v . Murphy , 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

To the extent that the Petitioner intends the June 8, 2020 pleading to be his Amended Complaint, it suffers from the same deficiencies as the original complaint that the Petitioner was notified of in the May 19, 2020 order. This case has no arguable basis in law or fact. The complaint should be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

Further, the Petitioner should not be given leave to amend. He was notified of the deficiencies in his Complaint and did not cure those deficiencies. This case should be dismissed with prejudice.

Other Pending Motions. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 12) and all other pending motions, if any, should be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

• Petitioner's "Voi Dare of Honorable Ronald B. Lighton and Request for Counsel" (Dkt. 12) IS DENIED AS MOOT ;

• All other pending motions, if any, ARE DENIED AS MOOT ; and

• This case IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

Dated this 10 day of September, 2020.

/s/ _________
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge