Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV21683, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21683    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 39

Dewey Demetro, Jr. v. Spring Street Courthouse Dept. 32 Clerk of Court

Case No. 23STCV21683

Minute Order

            Notice: The Court posts this tentative order in advance of the hearing on October 31, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff does not appear at the hearing, either remotely or in-person, he shall waive the right to be heard and shall submit to entry of this order.  If Plaintiff wishes to appear remotely but is experiencing difficulty, he may contact the Court’s clerk, Roberto Mendoza, at (213) 633-0159 for assistance. 

            Plaintiff Dewey Demetro, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented party, filed a handwritten complaint with no causes of action against the “Asian male” judicial assistant in the Spring Street Courthouse, Department #32.  In his complaint, he writes: “The biggest sirele [sic] killer in the word!” and “Killed 3,000 people.”  It is unclear whether he is referring to the judicial assistant or someone else.  However, the gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint relates to the judicial assistant’s handling of the following case: Dewey Demetro, Jr. v. LA Police Station, Case Number 22STCV07146.  Plaintiff alleges that when he appeared in Department #32, the judicial assistant was displeased that he arrived 20 minutes early and did not like his “shirt color” and his “shoes.”  Plaintiff then writes in his complaint: “WTF?”  Plaintiff also writes the following:  “Now I have to fight the worlds [sic] biggest sireal [sic] killer!  And a blond hair, Asian man!  This should be interesting! . . .  How do you fight with someone who has control of the scoreboard?”  Plaintiff suggests that he is displeased with the judicial assistant because the case was “push[ed] back” by seven months.  As a result, Plaintiff is seeking “Eight Billion Dollars.”  The complaint alleges no other facts and asserts no causes of action.

            This complaint is meritless on its face, not only based upon the nature of the allegations, but also because it asserts no causes of action.  Further, even if the judicial assistant—rather than the judge—was responsible for the continuances of Plaintiff’s case, “[c]ourt clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages . . . when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”  (See, e.g., Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Acres v. Marson (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 417, 442.) 

The Court has inherent authority to dismiss cases that are patently frivolous.  (See Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 181-182, citations omitted).  The Court also may notice its own motion for judgment on the pleadings, per Code of Civil Procedure section 438(b)(2).  Based upon the foregoing authorities, the Court issues an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed and notices its own motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The hearing shall be held on October 20, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., at the following location:

            Stanley Mosk Courthouse

            111 North Hill Street

            Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)

            Los Angeles, California 90012

The Court authorizes both in-person and remote appearances.  If Plaintiff would like to appear remotely but is having difficulty doing so, he may contact the Court’s clerk, Roberto Mendoza, at (213) 633-0159 for assistance. 

            Plaintiff may file a written opposition on or before October 9, 2023, or he may address the issues orally at the hearing.  The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff does not demonstrate that this action is viable, absent good cause, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice at the upcoming hearing.  Similarly, if Plaintiff does not appear at the hearing, absent good cause, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.

            The Court’s clerk shall serve this order upon Plaintiff.