(PC) Garbett v. Anderson ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARRICK M. GARBETT, No. 2:18-CV-1793-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JENNIFER SCHAFFER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On June 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and 23 recommendations, and also now has filed a motion to file a second amended complaint. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court 26 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and generally by proper 27 analysis. The magistrate judge is correct that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded an Eighth 28 Amendment violation, and therefore, at this stage, the first prong of the qualified immunity 1 analysis weighs in favor of denying qualified immunity. ECF No. 22 at 6. “On 2 a motion to dismiss, the Court is restricted to the allegations and facts stated in the 3 Complaint.” Kenney v. Hawaii, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1279 (D. Haw. 2000) (citations omitted). 4 “When . . . defendants assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), 5 ‘dismissal is not appropriate unless we can determine, based on the complaint itself, 6 that qualified immunity applies.’” O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920, 936 (9th Cir. 2016) 7 (quoting Groten v. California, 251 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2001)). However, this court declines 8 to reach the question of whether the magistrate judge’s analysis of the second qualified immunity 9 prong is sufficient, see ECF 22 at 6:21-25, as it need not given the defendants’ entitlement to 10 quasi-judicial immunity. 11 Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint seeks to allege a violation of the 12 Americans with Disabilities ACT (“ADA”). See ECF No. 24. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is 13 DENIED. Judicial immunity, and by extension, quasi-judicial immunity, shields defendants from 14 claims under the ADA for actions made in the course of normal judicial functions. Duvall v. 15 County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on denial of reh’g (Oct. 16 11, 2001). Because defendants’ alleged conduct, even if unsettling, is squarely within the ambit 17 of the judicial function, they are entitled to judicial immunity. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 11, 2019, are adopted except 20 as noted above; 21 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED; 22 3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 24) is DENIED; and 23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 24 DATED: September 30, 2019. 25 26 27 28