Shahrokhi v. Harter

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ALI SHAHROKI, T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00557-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. DISMISS 5 MATHEW HARTER, [ECF No. 8]

6 Defendant.

7 8 9 Defendant Judge Mathew Harter moves to dismiss this case because the plaintiffs fail to 10 state a justiciable claim. ECF No. 8. I agree. 11 The plaintiffs previously filed a complaint against Judge Harter with the Nevada 12 Commission on Judicial Discipline. ECF No. 1 at 3.1 That Commission denied the complaint. 13 Id. Disappointed with that result, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to remove Judge Harter 14 from the state court bench to ensure a “fair judiciary” for the public. ECF No. 1 at 3. The 15 plaintiffs have no case pending before Judge Harter. ECF No. 15 at 2. Rather, they seek relief on 16 behalf of all “up-standing litigants.” Id. at 3. 17 The Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally 18 available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in 19 proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and 20 tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or 21

22 1 Article 6, Section 21 of the Nevada Constitution “plainly grants the Commission [on Judicial Discipline] the exclusive authority to remove a judge from office with only one exception, the 23 legislative power of impeachment . . . .” Ramsey v. City of N. Las Vegas, 392 P.3d 614, 616 (Nev. 2017). 1}| controversy.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992). See also Vill. of Arlington 2\| Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 263 (1977) (“In the ordinary case, a party is 3] denied standing to assert the rights of third persons.”). The plaintiffs have no case pending before Judge Harter, so they cannot show they have suffered particularized and concrete injury in 5|| fact. They thus lack standing to assert these claims. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339-40 (2016). 7 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted. 8|| The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs and to close this file. 10 DATED THIS 31st day of January, 2022. 1] Z 2 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23