James Huffman v. Amy Lindgren (2023)

Although “we afford leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation,” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023), we have also acknowledged that “there are limits to what a court must do to accommodate a party appearing pro se.” Washington v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 1029, 1040 (9th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted).

Gorovenko’s conduct during this litigation may have been unprofessional by the standards to which we hold attorneys, but as a pro se plaintiff, he likely is “far more prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 6 24-5840 2023) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).

Moreover, Plaintiff Areta Guthrey, who drafted each iteration of the complaint before substitution of counsel, is an attorney licensed to practice both in the State of California and before the district court (Eastern District of California). “[A]ttorneys representing themselves should not be afforded special consideration and do not fall into the category of those ‘proceeding without assistance of 7 counsel.’” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2023) (declin…

Even accounting for the “leeway” afforded pro se parties, Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023), there is nothing in the record to suggest that the district court clearly erred in its willfulness determination.

Moreover, “we afford leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation.” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

Her division at the VA handles contract procurement 1 See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] lawyer representing himself ordinarily receives no such solicitude at all.”); Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192 , 1194 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977) (“We cannot accord [the plaintiff] the advantage of the liberal construction of his complaint normally given pro se litigants because he is a licensed attorney.” (cleaned up)); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 54…

Factual allegations, however, must 1 While the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, this grace “does not apply to practicing attorneys.” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

Id. at 1021 (citation omitted).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 10 81 F.4th 1016, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2023) (“The circuits that have reached the issue speak 11 with one voice: they have uniformly declined to extend the liberal pleading standard to 12 pro se attorneys.”).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

That liberal pleading standard, 8 however, does not apply to pro se “practicing attorneys.” Huffman v. Lindgren, 9 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

As the Ninth Circuit has explained, there is a “good reason that [courts] afford leeway to [self-represented] parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation: ‘Presumably unskilled in the law, the [self-represented] litigant is far more prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,…

As the Ninth Circuit has explained, there is a “good reason that [courts] afford leeway to [self-represented] parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation: ‘Presumably unskilled in the law, the [self-represented] litigant is far more prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,…

There is a good reason that we afford leeway to pro se parties ... 9|| [but] [t]hat logic does not apply to practicing attorneys, nor should the grace extend to 10|| them.” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2023).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2023).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2023). 9 Although the Ninth Circuit has not explicitly extended this holding to former attorneys, the 10 Court will not continue to give Beauchamp the benefit of liberal pleading standards.

While pro se pleadings are construed 25 liberally, a pro se litigant who is also a licensed attorney is not entitled to special solicitude. 26 See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023). 27 /// 28 /// 1 DISCUSSION 2 Attorney Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint arguing they are 3 immune from liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and Plaintiff fails to state a 4 claim because he fails to establish causation, fails to allege their condu…

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (“There is a 12 good reason that we afford leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the 13 benefit of sophisticated representation[.]”). 14 B.

As the Ninth Circuit has explained, there is a “good reason that [courts] afford leeway to [self-represented] parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation: ‘Presumably unskilled in the law, the [self-represented] litigant is far more prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 ).

To the extent Plaintiff intends to assert that the County is vicariously liable 21 for Kelley’s actions under § 1983, Plaintiff is foreclosed from relying upon such a theory. 22 As the Court stated above, “a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a 23 respondeat superior theory.” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) 24 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 ); see Hernandez, 666 F.3d at 636 . 25 Additionally, as the Court noted when dismissing Plain…

Cal. Oct. 6, 2023) (citing Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2023)), aff'd, 2024 WL 3874234 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2024).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that there is a “good reason” that district courts “afford leeway to [self-represented] parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation: ‘Presumably unskilled in the law, the [self-represented] litigant is far more prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Lopez v. Smith…

Huffman 21 v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal citation omitted) (“In view 22 of the immunity of the government defendants, where, as here, ‘it is clear that the 23 1 complaint could not be saved by amendment,’ then ‘dismissal without leave to 2 amend is proper.’”). 3 The Court also notes Zayas has filed previous actions against Judge McCoy 4 alleging that she violated Zayas’s rights by holding a “termination trial” and 5 “pretending” she was authorize…

See Docs. 23 at 8–12, 17; 25 at 2–6. 25 79 Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 797 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 26 80 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 81 Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567 (2020) (citing Eminence Capital, LLC v. 27 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)). 82 Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1022 (9…

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2023).

Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023). 25 3 Pin citations to page numbers in the Complaint refer to the CM/ECF page numbers stamped across the 26 top margin of the document. 27 4 “In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,” the Court may look “to the face of the complaint and the 28 documents attached thereto.” Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1137 (C.D.

See Smith v. Plati, 258 F.3d 1167, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 , 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2023) (collecting cases).

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 , 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2023) (collecting cases and remarking that “[t]he circuits that have reached the issue speak with one voice: they have uniformly declined to extend the liberal pleading standard to pro se attorneys”).

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2023).4 AFFIRMED. 3 E.g., Falcone v. Dickstein, 92 F.4th 193 , 205-10 & n.10 (3d Cir. 2024) (collecting cases), cert. denied sub nom.

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

Cir. 1998) (defining such a person as a “pro se attorney-litigant”); see also Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that attorneys who appear pro se do not get the benefit of the liberal pleading standards afforded to non-attorney pro se litigants.).

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

See also Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). 29 Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend based on judicial immunity). 30 Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 50…

See also Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). 29 Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend based on judicial immunity). 30 Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 50…

See also Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). 29 Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend based on judicial immunity). 30 Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 50…

See also Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). 29 Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (affirming dismissal without leave Case No. 4:25-cv-00052-SLG, John v. Superior State Courts 4th District, et al.

See also Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). 26 Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend based on judicial immunity).

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 , 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) 16 (noting that, although “there is a good reason that [courts] afford leeway to pro se parties, 17 who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation,” this 18 “logic does not apply to practicing attorneys, nor should the grace extend to them”); 19 Johnson v. City of Atwater, 2017 WL 1383283 , at *4 (E.D.

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023).

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 , 1020–1021 (9th Cir. 2023) 9 (“The circuits that have reached the issue speak with one voice: they have uniformly declined to 10 extend the liberal pleading standard to pro se attorneys. … There is a good reason that we afford 11 leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated 12 representation: Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to making 13 errors in pl…

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2023).

See, e.g., Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (explaining that the logic behind “afford[ing] leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation,” does not apply to practicing attorneys); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion by denying special consideration to pro se practicing attorneys); Comm. on the Co…

See Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2023). _9O_