Horob v. Watters ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF MONTANA ______________________________________ 8 ) TODD KENNETH HOROB, ) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) ) 1:19-cv-00096-RCJ 10 ) vs. ) 11 ) ORDER SUSAN P. WATTERS, et al., ) 12 ) Defendants. ) 13 ) 14 Plaintiff brought this suit seeking monetary damages from judges in this District claiming 15 that they fraudulently presided over his criminal case. Additionally, Plaintiff applies to proceed in 16 forma pauperis, which the Court grants but, in so doing, screens the case and dismisses it with 17 prejudice as Defendants enjoy absolute immunity. 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening for every case seeking in forma 20 pauperis and should dismiss the case if the action “is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 21 on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 22 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon 23 which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and a 24 court applies the same standard under Section 1915. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 1 Cir. 2012). When a court dismisses a complaint under Section 1915, the plaintiff should be given 2 leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from 3 the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United 4 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 5 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is a ruling on a question of law. Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of 6 America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper if it is 7 clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him 8 to relief. Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, a 9 court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint and construes them in the 10 light most favorable to the plaintiff. Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 11 Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 12 drafted by lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) 13 does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and 14 conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of 15 the elements of a claim is insufficient. Id. 16 BACKGROUND 17 Over ten years ago, a jury of Plaintiff’s peers convicted him on seven different counts in 18 this District. Plaintiff challenged the conviction and sentence through appeals and collateral attacks 19 to no avail. After serving his sentence, the Bureau of Prisons released Plaintiff earlier this year. 20 (ECF No. 1.) Shortly thereafter, he initiated this case against Defendants, who are all judges in this 21 District. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants fraudulently “altered and fabricated the Court record 22 and transcript” in his case and lied to protect the fraud. (Id.) 23 /// 24 /// 1 ANALYSIS 2 As an initial matter, Plaintiff submitted a declaration showing an inability to prepay fees 3 and costs or give security for them. (ECF No. 4.) Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request to 4 proceed in forma pauperis. In granting this request, the Court proceeds to screen the Complaint. 5 Plaintiff brings this case against three judges in this District for the alleged fraudulent 6 handling of his criminal case: 1:08-CR-00093-BMM. (ECF No. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff 7 vaguely states that Defendants lied and acted fraudulently but does not relay a single specific 8 instance of such conduct. (Id.) These conclusory allegations would merit dismissal because they 9 lack the required specificity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. However, the claims suffer 10 from more serious defects that render dismissal with prejudice appropriate. 11 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants alleging that they fraudulently 12 performed their duties as judges. These claims cannot succeed. The Supreme Court has long 13 proclaimed that judges enjoy absolute immunity “from liability for damages for acts committed 14 within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (citing Bradley v. 15 Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1872)). This immunity even extends to allegations of bad faith or malice. Id. 16 Absolute immunity is essential for judges to be neutral decisionmakers without fear of incurring 17 civil liability. Id. With this protection, Plaintiff claims that Defendants are liable for fraudulently 18 presiding over his criminal case is fatally flawed. Accordingly, amendment cannot cure this defect, 19 and the Court dismisses the case with prejudice. 20 Lastly, the Court finds that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not have an 21 arguable basis in law or fact, so appeal of this order would be frivolous. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 22 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir. 1984)). 23 Thus, the Court certifies that any in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in 24 good faith. 1 CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 3 || Pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies that any in forma pauperis appeal 6 || from this order would not be taken “in good faith” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 7 The clerk of the court shall close this case and enter judgment accordingly. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated this 28th day of February 2020. 10 ) 11 : ROBERY C. JONES 12 United St District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A nwfA