(PS) Gamino v. Pear ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON MICHAEL GAMINO, Case No. 2:23-cv-02519-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MICHAEL PEAR, ECF No. 2 15 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 17 DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 18 ECF No. 1 19 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 20 21 Plaintiff brings this action against Michael Pear, an “attorney/pro tem judge” who he 22 alleges presided over his traffic court and denied him the right to view a highway patrol officer’s 23 body camera footage. ECF No. 1. Defendant is immune from suit, and plaintiff’s claims are 24 barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. I will recommend that plaintiff’s compliant be dismissed 25 without leave to amend. I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, 26 which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 27 28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 3 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 4 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 6 relief. Id. 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 Plaintiff alleges that defendant, a pro tem judge, violated his rights by denying him the 26 opportunity to view a highway patrol officer’s body camera footage and by preventing him from 27 speaking on record. ECF No. 1 at 4. This action fails because defendant is entitled to judicial 28 immunity. See O’Neil v. City of Lake Oswego, 642 F.2d 367, 368-70 (9th Cir. 1981) (pro tem 1 | judge entitled to judicial immunity). Additionally, plaintiff's suit runs afoul of the Rooker- 2 | Feldman doctrine, which holds that federal courts lack appellate jurisdiction to review final state 3 | court judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) (“Under the 4 | legislation of Congress, no court of the United States other than this court could entertain a 5 || proceeding to reverse or modify the judgment for [constitutional] errors ....”). The doctrine 6 | applies where, as here, plaintiff challenges a final traffic court judgment. See Herships v. Cantil- 7 | Sakauye, No. 17-cv-00473-YGR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81506, at *15 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) 8 | (“Thus, plaintiff’s claims related to the state court’s judgment against him and subsequent 9 | suspension of his driver’s license are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”). 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs application to proceed for leave to 11 | proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 12 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 14 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 17 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 20 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 21 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 22 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 23 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | q Sty — Dated: _ March 15, 2024 □□ 27 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE