Yuri Imuta v. The State of California

C.D. California

Yuri Imuta v. The State of California

DecidedDecember 21, 2022

Docket8:22-cv-02249

StatusUnknown

This text of Yuri Imuta v. The State of California (Yuri Imuta v. The State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yuri Imuta v. The State of California, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-02249-SVW-JPR Document5 Filed 12/21/22 Pagei1of1 Page ID #:102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 8:22-cv-02249-SVW-JPR Date December 21, 2022 Title Yuri Imuta v. The State of California et al JS -6

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Here, the Court's review of the Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over the instant matter under section 1331. There is no federal question apparent from the Notice of Removal or attached exhibits. Plaintiff pleads a Section 1983 claim. However, Plaintiff's complaint does not plead a Section 1983 claim because Plaintiffs due process claim alleges that private actors, not a state, violated his due process rights. Additionally, Plaintiff's first claim is premised on the entry of summary judgment against him by a Superior Court judge. This action cannot form the basis for a section 1983 claim. Judges a€ceare responsible to the people alone for the manner in which they perform their duties. If faithless, if corrupt, if dishonest, if partial, if oppressive or arbitrary, they may be called to account by impeachment, and removed from office. . .. But responsible they are not to private parties in civil actions for the judicial acts, however injurious may be those acts, and however much they may deserve condemnation, unless perhaps where the acts are palpably in excess of the jurisdiction of the judges, and are done maliciously or corruptly.4€ Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 537 (1869). Here, the Court sees no evidence of malice or corruption. Last, Plaintiff's Truth in Lending Act claim appears to actually be an unlawful detainer claim, so it does not form the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The "mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction." Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 813, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). Therefore, the case is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Initials of Preparer PMC CV 90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page | of |

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Case 8:22-cv-02249-SVW-JPR Document5 Filed 12/21/22 Pagei1of1 Page ID #:102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 8:22-cv-02249-SVW-JPR Date December 21, 2022 Title Yuri Imuta v. The State of California et al JS -6

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Here, the Court's review of the Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over the instant matter under section 1331. There is no federal question apparent from the Notice of Removal or attached exhibits. Plaintiff pleads a Section 1983 claim. However, Plaintiff's complaint does not plead a Section 1983 claim because Plaintiffs due process claim alleges that private actors, not a state, violated his due process rights. Additionally, Plaintiff's first claim is premised on the entry of summary judgment against him by a Superior Court judge. This action cannot form the basis for a section 1983 claim. Judges a€ceare responsible to the people alone for the manner in which they perform their duties. If faithless, if corrupt, if dishonest, if partial, if oppressive or arbitrary, they may be called to account by impeachment, and removed from office. . .. But responsible they are not to private parties in civil actions for the judicial acts, however injurious may be those acts, and however much they may deserve condemnation, unless perhaps where the acts are palpably in excess of the jurisdiction of the judges, and are done maliciously or corruptly.4€ Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 537 (1869). Here, the Court sees no evidence of malice or corruption. Last, Plaintiff's Truth in Lending Act claim appears to actually be an unlawful detainer claim, so it does not form the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The "mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction." Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 813, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). Therefore, the case is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Initials of Preparer PMC CV 90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page | of |

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yuri Imuta v. The State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yuri-imuta-v-the-state-of-california-cacd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack