Kimble v. Birchak

1
25-cv-3507-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jolee KIMBLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Frank BIRCHANK, et al.
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-3507-AGS-SBC
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Self-represented plaintiff Jolee Kimble filed an amended complaint after this Court
previously screened out her claims against Superior Court Judge Frank Birchank on
judicial-immunity grounds. (See ECF 4 (screening order); ECF 12 (amended complaint).)
Although the amended complaint has ballooned to now include forty defendants, it too fails
screening.
DISCUSSION
The Court must screen the complaint of a plaintiff like Kimble who is proceeding in
forma pauperis—that is, who has been permitted to proceed without paying the filing fees.
The screened complaint must be dismissed if, among other things, it “fails to state a claim”
or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Just like last time, Kimble’s claims against Judge Birchank arise from his
actions as a judicial officer and thus must be dismissed. (See generally ECF 4 (discussing
judicial immunity).) Moreover, she’s now named several other individuals she identifies
as judicial officers—Christopher Morris, Matthew Braner, Adam Wertheimer, Danielle
Dunham Ramirez, Jonathan W. Fattarsi, and Judith McConnell—and, to the extent they
are even mentioned in the body of her amended complaint, each suffers from the same
deficiency. So, for the same reasons as last time, the claims against all those individuals
are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. See Huffman v. Lindgren,
81 F.4th 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2023) (affirming dismissal “without leave to amend” based
on judicial immunity (cleaned up)).
Case 3:25-cv-03507-AGS-SBC Document 14 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25-cv-3507-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As to the remaining nonjudicial defendants, they are an eclectic lot: plaintiff’s
(perhaps) ex-spouse, a couple of his family members, the federal Department of Justice,
several police departments, some workers at “Cheesecake Factory,” someone who works
in “Mental Health” at the “Olive Garden,” child protective services, UPS, multiple courts,
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a handful of attorneys, a pediatrician, and a company.
(See ECF 12, at 17–26.) Unfortunately, her amended complaint offers little help in figuring
out how these seemingly unrelated individuals and entities fit together, much less how this
Court has the authority to order the relief she requests. (See id. at 15 (“begging” the Court
to “call the FBI and have [the defendants] arrested” and then informing the Court that she
had “contacted the FBI on you [meaning the Court] as well”).)
Her complaint is written in a stream-of-consciousness style, which is difficult to
follow. It provides no clear indication of who many of these defendants are or what claims
are being asserted against any of them. As an example, here is a page of the amended
complaint:
Case 3:25-cv-03507-AGS-SBC Document 14 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25-cv-3507-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(See ECF 12, at 8.) To add to the confusion, attached to the amended complaint, in no
discernable order, are over 600 pages of court orders, emails, and other seemingly
unconnected documents, some of which are either handwritten or illegible. (See generally
id.)
Case 3:25-cv-03507-AGS-SBC Document 14 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25-cv-3507-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,” with allegations that are “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). This rule is “not meant to impose a great burden upon a plaintiff.”
Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347 (2005). But the complaint must give “fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (cleaned up). “Prolix, confusing complaints impose
unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Sys.,
637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). Despite hours spent combing through
Kimble’s amended complaint, the Court cannot say with any certainty what any of her
claims are against any of these defendants. It falls far short of giving the required notice of
her claims. See id. (“While the proper length and level of clarity for a pleading cannot be
defined with any great precision, Rule 8(a) has been held to be violated by a pleading that
was needlessly long, or a complaint that was highly repetitious, or confused, or consisted
of incomprehensible rambling.”). So, the rest of the amended complaint must be dismissed
for failing to comply with Rule 8.
CONCLUSION
The amended complaint is DISMISSED. The claims against the named judicial
officers are dismissed without leave to amend. The claims against the remaining defendants
are dismissed with leave to amend. By April 13, 2026, Kimble must file any second
amended 	complaint 	against 	the 	nonjudicial 	defendants, 	remedying 	the 	deficiencies
mentioned above. Any second amended complaint must be complete by itself without
reference to any previous version of her pleading. Defendants not named and any claims
not re-alleged in that complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1;
Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). If Kimble fails to timely
amend, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action. See Lira v. Herrera,
427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the
opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint
into dismissal of the entire action.”).
Case 3:25-cv-03507-AGS-SBC Document 14 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25-cv-3507-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: March 15, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03507-AGS-SBC Document 14 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5