Joe Alter v. Neil Gorsuch ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH SCOTT ALTER, Case No. 2:24-cv-01803-FLA (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN 13 v. WRITING WHY THE COURT 14 SHOULD NOT DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS 15 NEIL GORSUCH, et al., LITIGANT 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 RULING 20 Plaintiff Joseph Scott Alter (“Plaintiff”) brings the subject action in pro se, 21 against Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice 22 Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Clarence Thomas 23 (“Defendants”). On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16, 24 “FAC”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants. FAC ¶¶ 22–23. 25 This is the fourth action Plaintiff has filed in the Central District of California 26 suing sitting justices of the United States Supreme Court for past rulings. Plaintiff’s 27 prior actions were: (1) Joseph Alter v. US Supreme Court, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv- 28 05579-ODW (PDx); (2) Joseph Alter v. Neil Gorsuch, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10587- 1 FLA (RAOx); and (3) Joseph Alter v. Neil Gorsuch, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01787- 2 JLS.1 The first and second prior actions were dismissed for lack of subject matter 3 jurisdiction. 4 As the court explained previously, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to 5 review or void decisions by the Supreme Court. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 6 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A decision of the Supreme Court will control that corner 7 of the law unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules or modifies it. Judges 8 of the inferior courts may voice their criticisms, but follow [precedent] they must.”); 9 Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 (“A district court has no … authority to ‘review’ any ruling of a court of appeals.”); 11 Rein v. Providian Fin. Corp., 270 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The collateral attack 12 doctrine precludes litigants from collaterally attacking the judgments of other 13 courts.”). Moreover, judges are immune from suit for judicial actions taken in the 14 course of their official duties, and the United States, as a sovereign, is immune from 15 suit absent waiver and consent. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). 16 Nevertheless, Plaintiff has continued to file direct challenges to the Supreme Court’s 17 rulings, which this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain. 18 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 83-8, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to Show 19 Cause in writing, by April 23, 2024, why the court should not declare Plaintiff a 20 vexatious litigant and direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept further filings from 21 Plaintiff without written authorization from a District Judge or a Magistrate Judge of 22 the Court or impose other prefiling requirements similar to those of California Code of 23 24 1 Plaintiff additionally filed a complaint for damages and declaratory judgment against 25 Senator Mitch McConnell, regarding Senator McConnell’s alleged failure to convict and impeach former President Donald Trump. Case No. 2:23-cv-05785-ODW (PDx), 26 Dkt. 1 at 2–6. The court dismissed the action with prejudice as Senator McConnell 27 was immune from suit under the Speech and Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, and because Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign 28 immunity. Id., Dkts. 35, 38. 1 | Civil Procedure § 391.7. See Local Rule 83-8.4 (“[T]he Court may, at its discretion, 2 | proceed by reference to the Vexatious Litigants statute of the State of California, Cal. 3 || Code Civ. Proc. §§ 391 - 391.8.”). Failure to respond timely will be deemed an 4 | admission that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 | Dated: April 9, 2024 eed) 10 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA 4 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28