(PS) Ento v. York ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN DAVID ENTO, No. 2:19-cv-01931-DAD-AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JUDGE YORK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 28 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 1 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 7 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 9 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 13 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 14 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 15 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 16 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 17 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 18 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 19 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 20 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 21 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 22 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 23 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 24 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 25 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 26 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 27 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 28 cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 1 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 2 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 3 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 4 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 5 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 6 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 7 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 8 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 9 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 10 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 11 III. Complaint 12 The complaint alleges that Municipal Court Judge York and Federal Judge Newman 13 violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants “violated 14 my rights and sabotaged my case file.” ECF No. 1 at 3. The alleged injury is listed as “record 15 was damaged.” Id. No other facts are alleged. Plaintiff seeks exoneration. Id. at 5. 16 IV. Analysis 17 1. Failure to State a Claim 18 “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by 19 the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was 20 committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) 21 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has held that judges acting within the course and scope of 22 their judicial duties are absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983. Pierson v. 23 Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action 24 he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be 25 subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Stump v. 26 Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351 27 (1871)). A judge’s jurisdiction is quite broad and its scope is determined by the two-part test 28 articulated in Stump: 1 2 The relevant cases demonstrate that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a “judicial” one relate to [1] the nature of the act 3 itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and [2] to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with 4 the judge in his judicial capacity. 5 Id. at 362. 6 Although it is not clear that plaintiff is seeking damages from the two defendant judges, to 7 the extent he may be attempting to do so, they are immune. While plaintiff does not specify what 8 either judge allegedly did, it is apparent that his complaint has to do with actions the judges took 9 in relation to pending cases. Plaintiff’s complaint thus addresses actions taken in the duties 10 “normally performed by a judge,” and defendants Newman and York are therefore absolutely 11 immune from liability under § 1983. The claims against them must be dismissed without leave to 12 amend. 13 To the extent plaintiff appears to be seeking an order from this court directing defendant 14 York to take specific action (e.g. exonerate plaintiff), “[t]he federal courts are without power to 15 issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their 16 duties.” Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (1966) (citations omitted); Demos v. 17 U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[T]his court lacks 18 jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651)). Actions 19 which seek “to obtain a writ in this court to compel a state court to take or refrain from some 20 action . . . are frivolous as a matter of law.” Demos, 925 F.2d at 1161-62. Because there is no 21 relief plaintiff can seek against these defendants, the claims against them must be dismissed. 22 2. Limitations on the Scope of Section 1983 23 State prisoners may not attack the validity of the fact of their confinement in a section 24 1983 action and “habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy” for such claims. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 25 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (“habeas corpus 26 is the exclusive remedy to attack the legality of the conviction or sentence”). Accordingly, 27 because plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction and sentence, the complaint must be dismissed. 28 1 V. No Leave to Amend 2 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 3 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 4 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se 5 litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, 6 unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 7 amendment.” (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))). However, if, after 8 careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may 9 dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1005-06. 10 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state a claim upon 11 which relief may be granted and that amendment would be futile. The complaint should therefore 12 be dismissed without leave to amend. 13 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 14 Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the 15 entire filing fee immediately. 16 It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 17 because you cannot bring claims under § 1983 against judges. You also cannot challenge your 18 sentence or conviction in a § 1983 case. 19 CONCLUSION 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 22 GRANTED. 23 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 24 Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with 26 this court’s order to the appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 27 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without leave to 28 amend for failure to state a claim. ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within twenty-one days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 5 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 7 | (th Cir. 1991). 8 | DATED: September 26, 2022 ~ 9 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28