Drevaleva v. Beeler ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA Case No. 20-cv-00642-KAW DREVALEVA, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA 9 PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND v. REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND 10 RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS LAUREL BEELER, et al., CASE WITH PREJUDICE 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2 12 13 On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva filed this case against 14 Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, based on judicial actions taken in Case No. 16-cv-7414-LB, 15 Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System. (Compl. Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also applied to proceed in 16 forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) 17 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the 18 case is clearly frivolous, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, the Court reassigns 19 this case to a district judge and recommends that the case be dismissed with prejudice. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time 22 the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 26 See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner, 27 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be 1 A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2) 2 parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 3 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 4 defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the 5 complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to 6 afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 7 2010)(citations omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be 8 given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 9 complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th 10 Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130- 11 31 (9th Cir. 2000). 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff brings suit against Judge Beeler based on Judge Beeler’s rulings in Drevaleva v. 14 Alameda Health System, Inc. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Each of Plaintiff’s claims challenge specific orders 15 and rulings. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-18.) Plaintiff then alleges that “Judge Beeler’s actions were aimed to 16 aid and abet my abusers,” before again asserting that Judge Beeler erred in dismissing her 17 amended complaint, not allowing discovery, deciding motions on the papers, and withdrawing her 18 in forma pauperis status on appeal. (Compl. ¶ 20.) 19 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by judicial immunity. The Supreme Court has long held that 20 “judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial 21 acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done 22 maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978) (internal quotation 23 omitted). “[T]he scope of the judge’s jurisdiction must be construed broadly when the issue is the 24 immunity of the judge. A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was 25 in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to 26 liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 356-57 (internal 27 quotation omitted). Thus, even allegations of a conspiracy between a judge and a party “does not 1 actions taken within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, immunity applies.” Ashelman v. Pope, 2 |} 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Here, Plaintiff's claims challenge Judge Beeler’s orders and rulings in a case that was 4 || proceeding before Judge Beeler. Thus, judicial immunity applies. While Plaintiff complains that 5 || Judge Beeler repeatedly ruled against her and was trying to aid Defendants, this is irrelevant; 6 || “[rJuling against a party, even repeatedly, does not mean that a judge is acting in his or her 7 || personal capacity. Judicial immunity ‘applies even when the judge is accused of acting 8 || maliciously and corruptly.’” Nielsen v. Lunas, Case No. 16-cv-3631-EMC, 2016 U.S. Dist. 9 |} LEXIS 13371, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016). 10 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the case be dismissed with prejudice because 11 Plaintiff cannot state a claim. %L Hl. CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with 14 || the recommendation that the action be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court GRANTS 3 15 Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis. a 16 Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 3 17 within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 18 Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 19 || may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 20 || Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: February 3, 2020 ' 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28