(PC) Walker v. Brennan ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELMER EUGENE WALKER, No. 2:22-cv-1921 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 EDMUND F. BRENNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 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. 7. 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). 6 The 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 Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 13 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 14 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).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 names as defendants federal Magistrate Judge Brennan, “all the judges in 13 California and this nation,” and Governor Newsom. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff appears to allege 14 that all judges have conspired to protect the California Department of Corrections and 15 Rehabilitation by requiring prisoners to pay the filing fee if they have three or more lawsuits 16 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Id. at 3-4. He further alleges that 17 the judges, as well as Governor Newsom, know that this is discrimination. Id. at 3. Attached to 18 the complaint are findings and recommendations from another case in which Judge Brennan 19 recommended that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. Id. at 7-9. 20 IV. Failure to State a Claim 21 The Supreme Court has held that judges acting within the course and scope of their 22 judicial duties are absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 23 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he 24 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 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 2 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 3 the judge in his judicial capacity. 4 Id. at 362. 5 Plaintiff alleges that Judge Brennan recommended denial of in forma pauperis status, an 6 act that falls squarely within the scope of functions “normally performed by a judge” and done 7 while acting in the capacity of a judge. Judge Brennan is therefore absolutely immune from 8 liability under § 1983 and the claims against him must be dismissed without leave to amend. 9 Though plaintiff does not identify by name any other judges who have denied him leave to 10 proceed in forma pauperis or recommended such denial, the same analysis would apply and such 11 claims against them are barred. Claims based on other orders and rulings that plaintiff views as 12 biased in favor of CDCR are barred for the same reason. 13 With respect to Governor Newsom, “[l]iability under § 1983 must be based on the 14 personal involvement of the defendant,” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 15 1998) (citing May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980)), and plaintiff has not alleged 16 any facts demonstrating Newsom’s personal involvement in a constitutional violation. 17 Amendment to remedy this does not appear possible, as the recommended denial of plaintiff’s 18 motion to proceed in forma pauperis was based on federal law and Governor Newsom has no 19 authority in matters related to the federal courts. 20 V. No Leave to Amend 21 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 22 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 23 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 24 cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 25 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 26 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted and that given the nature of the claims, amendment would be futile. 28 The complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. 1 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 2 Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the 3 || entire filing fee immediately. 4 It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 5 || because you cannot bring claims under § 1983 against judges and you have not alleged any 6 || claims against Governor Newsom. 7 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. 9 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 10 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 11 | § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 12 || appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 13 3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 14 || action. 15 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without leave to 16 || amend for failure to state a claim. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 20 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 21 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 22 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 23 |) (9th Cir. 1991). 24 || DATED: January 12, 2023 ~ 25 Hhthtin— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28