1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL MIROYAN, Case No. 3:19-cv-03626-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 27 10 TAE KAI, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On September 11, 2019, I dismissed pro se plaintiff Michael Miroyan’s complaint for lack 14 of federal subject matter jurisdiction.1 Dkt. No. 22. Miroyan pleaded federal claims against Judge 15 Robert D.S. Kim of the Third Circuit in Hawaii, but there was no evidence in the docket that 16 Judge Kim had been served, Miroyan had alleged no facts to support the claims, and the claims 17 seemed to be barred. The remaining claims were based in state law, and in the clear absence of 18 diversity jurisdiction,2 I lacked jurisdiction over them. In that Order, I gave Miroyan until October 19 2, 2019 to file a first amended complaint. On October 1, Miroyan requested additional time to 20 amend; I granted his request in part and gave him until October 16 to file an amended complaint.3 21 See Dkt. Nos. 23, 24. 22 On October 15, 2019, Miroyan filed several documents. See Dkt. Nos. 27, 28, 29. One is 23 titled, “Motion to extend time due to change of circumstances for an additional 14 days to have 24 1 Miroyan failed to appear at the hearing that day. 25

2 The complaint pleads that both Miroyan and some defendants live in California. See Dkt. No. 1 26 at 2, 8.

27 3 He also appeared, unscheduled, at my Case Management Conference calendar that day; I advised 1 Plaintiff file the first amended complaint, w/ the order attached.” Dkt. No. 27. Miroyan wrote that 2 he needed more time to draft the complaint detailing a complicated dispute that has been going on 3 for years. He complained that Judge Kim should have stepped down from the Hawaii case and 4 that he signed a secret order without informing Miroyan. According to Miroyan, “outrageous 5 crimes” have been committed against him in state court in Hawaii, and “this Court or the Ninth 6 Circuit must delay [Judge Kim] because the guy has to withstand scrutiny and he cannot.” Id. at 3. 7 Miroyan also attached a foreclosure judgment in Hawaii case along with an email he sent to an 8 address associated with the Hawaii state courts.4 Dkt. No. 28. 9 I will dismiss Miroyan’s case with prejudice for four reasons. First, I already denied the 10 request that Miroyan made in his most recent filings; in his earlier request, he also asked for a 11 November 1 deadline to file an amended complaint, and I ordered that he do so by October 16. 12 Despite his contention that there was a “change of circumstances,” Miroyan has presented no 13 reasons why I should reconsider that decision. 14 Second, I am not persuaded by Miroyan’s assertion that he needs more time to lay out the 15 complicated facts of his case. Miroyan is the plaintiff. Even in his original complaint, filed on 16 June 21, 2019, he wrote, “The litany of allegations against Robert Kim, whom Miroyan is suing in 17 his individual as well as official capacity, cannot all be delineated here but will be in the first 18 amended complaint.” Dkt. No. 1 at 10. Accordingly, Miroyan has been aware from the beginning 19 that his claims against Judge Kim would require more factual support, and he has had more than 20 four months to develop a complaint that properly lays out those allegations. 21 Third, as of the date of this Order—later than that of his requested extension—Miroyan has 22 not filed an amended complaint. 23 Finally, and most importantly, Miroyan’s filings—most notably the judgment from the 24 Hawaii case—make it abundantly clear that he is seeking federal court intervention into decisions 25 made by a state court judge in a state court case. See Dkt. No. 27 at 3 (“This Court or the Ninth 26

27 4 Miroyan also included a notice to the Clerk where he writes that he has “dropped” his urgent 1 Circuit must delay [Judge Kim] because the guy has to withstand scrutiny and he cannot.”). The 2 || Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars such actions. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.,

(9th 3 Cir. 2004) (noting that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts “from exercising 4 || subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment”); 5 || Henrichs v. Valley View Dev.,

, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that Rooker-Feldman 6 || barred a claim that “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was 7 || wrong and thus void’). In addition, in none of his filings does Miroyan allege any facts showing 8 || that Judge Kim either took nonjudicial actions or took judicial actions “in the complete absence of 9 || all jurisdiction” in order to overcome the judicial immunity bar. See Mireles v. Waco,

, 10 11-12 (1991). 1] By failing to amend his complaint in the nearly two months since my Order, Miroyan has 12 || failed to prosecute his case as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). His filings, 13 || which fail to provide a basis for federal jurisdiction, instead show that his claims against Judge 14 Kim are barred. For all of these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. 16 Dated: November 5, 2019 | ( . Z 18 m H. Orrick 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28