Dydzak v. United States
| Decision Date | 31 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17-cv-04360-EMC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | DANIEL D. DYDZAK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
Before the Court is Defendant Tani Cantil-Sakauye's motion to dismiss. In addition, on September 15, 2017, the Court ordered Mr. Dydzak to show cause why the remaining claims against other defendants should not also be dismissed. See Docket No. 14. Mr. Dydzak was granted an extension to respond to the order to show cause and to Defendant Cantil-Sakauye's motion. See Docket No. 23. He filed a written response to both. See Docket Nos. 29, 30. A hearing was held on both matters on October 26, 2017. See Docket No. 34. Mr. Dydzak appeared and presented argument.
For the reasons below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED and the Court, on its own motion, DISMISSES the remaining claims.
This is the latest in a long line of cases brought by Daniel D. Dydzak since his disbarment by the California State Bar in 2010.1 In this case, Mr. Dydzak alleges that various defendants—including federal district court judges, Ninth Circuit judges, California state judges, attorneyspreviously adverse to Mr. Dydzak, a number of banks or investment advisors, and their family members or alleged associates—have conspired against him, resulting in adverse rulings in his prior litigation. Essentially, Mr. Dydzak posits that his disbarment, the dismissal of many previous lawsuits, the denial of disqualification motions he has filed in other cases, and his losses on a number of appeals were not made for legitimate reasons, but rather, were the result of improper influence exerted in part through the presiding judges' ex parte communications with interested parties or conflicts of interest arising out of their alleged personal, professional, or financial associations.
To the extent relevant to Mr. Dydzak's claims in this case,2 the Court recounts Mr. Dydzak's prior litigation, and associated rulings, below.3
The Dydzak v. George matter involved a 77-page complaint against 33 defendants (including Defendant Ronald M. George). See Dydzak v. George, Case No. 10-5820 SVW, Docket No. 1 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Mr. Dydzak alleged that judges, adverse lawyers, and other entities conspired to have him disbarred in retaliation for his representation of a client in an earlier lawsuit against Defendant Alan Rothenberg (former California State Bar President and "establishment lawyer"). The George defendants were also accused of thwarting his various challenges to his disbarment. Mr. Dydzak brought causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state torts for fraud and intentional interference with economic relations.
The case was presided over by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. In an 18-page order, Judge Wilson dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice, concluding they were barred by collateral estoppel (in light of his prior litigation in state court), judicial immunity, and the Eleventh Amendment. See Dydzak v. George, Case No. 10-5820 SVW, Docket No. 16 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2010) . Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. See Dydzak v. George, Docket Nos. 17 and 23. He then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, id., Docket No. 24, and filed a motion to disqualify Judge Wilson and all judges of the Central District of California, id., Docket No. 28. The motion was referred to Judge Robert Whaley of the Eastern District of Washington, who denied it. Id., Docket No. 32. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff's motion to disqualify all Ninth Circuit judges and to refer his appeal to the Federal Circuit. Id., Docket No. 40. He filed a renewed motion to transfer his appeal to the Federal Circuit, which was also denied; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. Id., Docket No. 44.
Judges Wilson and Whaley are now Defendants in this case.
The Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye matter involved a 38-page complaint against 47 defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. See Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye, Case No. 11-5560-JCC (C.D. Cal. 2011). Mr. Dydzak alleged that he was disbarred in retaliation for prior litigation he had brought against Defendant Alan Rothenberg, and that his subsequent legal challenges were thwarted by conspiracies somehow connected to said lawyer. Mr. Dydzak also alleged that in July 2011, he sent a letter to the California Supreme Court Justices, including Judge Cantil-Sakauye, purporting to inform them of the illegalities associated with his disbarment, but that they took no action. That appears to have been the sole allegation against Judge Cantil-Sakauye.
The case was heard by Judge John C. Coughenour of the Eastern District of Washington by special designation. Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye, Case No. 11-5560-JCC, Docket No. 8 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Judge Coughenour issued a sua sponte order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, and later dismissed all claims. Id., Docket Nos. 12 and 16. He also issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with Rule 11 and should not be declared a vexatious litigant. Id., Docket Nos. 16 and 19. Mr. Dydzak then movedto disqualify Judge Coughenour, a motion that was referred to Judge Justin L. Quackenbush of the Eastern District of Washington, who denied it. Id., Docket Nos. 23, 29, 33. Judge Coughenour then declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and entered a pre-filing order barring Plaintiff from "initiating any further litigation in this or any other federal court alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens based on his disbarment without the prior authorization from the presiding judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California" and "provid[ing] security in the amount of $5,000 for each defendant against whom he seeks to proceed with Court authorization." Id., Docket No. 35.
Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, unsuccessfully requesting transfer to another court of appeals. Id., Docket Nos. 37 and 44. The Ninth Circuit panel including Judges Edward Leavy, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Milan D. Smith affirmed Judge Coughenaur's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims and the pre-filing order. See Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye, et al., 603 Fed.Appx. 622 (9th Cir. 2015).
In this 75-page complaint against over 100 defendants (including Defendants Ronald George, Eric George, Alan Rothenberg, Charles Schwab, and Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and the Bancshares entities), Mr. Dydzak alleged that his bar disciplinary proceedings were tainted and illegal and were politically motivated because he successfully represented clients against Defendant Alan Rothenberg and First Century Bank, for which Rothenberg was allegedly Chief Operating Officer. See Dydzak v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. 12-8759, Docket No. 1 (C.D. Cal. 2012). He alleged that a state court lawsuit he brought challenging his disbarment, Dydzak v. Dunn et al, was fixed by Defendants. His claims were brought under Section 1983 and RICO.
This case was originally filed in the District for the District of Columbia, where it was transferred by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to the Central District of California. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the transfer order and for disqualification of Judge Huvelle; both requests were denied. Id., Docket Nos. 4, 5, and 6. It was heard by Judge Manuel L. Real, who issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with JudgeCoughenour's pre-filing order. Id., Docket No. 9. After Judge Real dismissed the complaint, id., Docket No. 11, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify Judge Real. Id., Docket No. 12. The disqualification motion was heard and denied by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Id., Docket Nos. 13, 14. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but his appeal was dismissed because he failed to pay the required filing fees. Id., Docket Nos. 18, 19, 20. His request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis was denied based on the Ninth Circuit's finding "that the appeal is frivolous." Id., Docket No. 19.
The complaint for this case has apparently been sealed and therefore the Court cannot view it or take judicial notice. Nevertheless, Judge Otis D. Wright, II's order of dismissal summarizes the claims and allegations. See Dydzak v. Alexander, 2:16-cv-02915-ODW, Docket No. 23 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2016). The order recounts that Mr. Dydzak alleged a conspiracy by defendants (including FBI agents, prosecutors, federal judges, and private parties) to harass and wiretap him in violation of Section 1983 and the Federal Wiretap Law (18 U.S.C. § 2520), causing him emotional distress. In this case, too, Mr. Dydzak had filed a motion to disqualify Judge Wright, which was referred to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and denied. Id., Docket No. 21. Mr. Dydzak appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and his appeal was dismissed for failure to pay required filing fees. Id., Docket No. 28.
When Mr. Dydzak moved to reverse and set aside the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit rejected his request and stated on January 17, 2017 that Id., Docket No. 29.
This 17 page complaint against 12 defendants (including Defendants ...
To continue reading
Request your trial