Medved v. Snow et al
Filing
9
ORDER that Plaintiff's 8 (Second) Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. All pending motions (Docs. 2 , 4 and 7 ) are denied as moot. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/5/2014. (LFIG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Justin Sloan Medved,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-14-02191-PHX-DGC
G Murray Snow, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pro se Plaintiff Justin Sloan Medved has sued United States District Judges John
16
Joseph Tuchi and Grant Murray Snow.
17
application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (Doc. 2), a motion to allow electronic
18
filing by a party appearing without an attorney (Doc. 4), and a motion entitled permission
19
to the exercise of authority by District Judge (Doc. 7).
Docs. 1, 6, 8.
Plaintiff has also filed an
20
In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
21
determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]”
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e)
23
applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)
24
(en banc). “Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss[] sua sponte
25
. . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. “It is also clear that section
26
1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis
27
complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127.
28
Plaintiff’s claim against Judges Tuchi and Snow is based on decisions they made
1
in his previous lawsuits.
2
(September
3
(September 22, 2014). The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaints and finds that they
4
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The complaints are barred by the
5
doctrine of judicial immunity.
15,
2014);
See Medved v. Medved, No. CV-14-02005-PHX-JJT
Medved
v.
Medved,
No.
CV-14-02076-PHX-GMS
6
The doctrine immunizes a judge from suit, not just from an ultimate assessment of
7
damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.
8
511, 526 (1985)). “Judicial immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances.
9
First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken
10
in the judge's judicial capacity.” Id. “[T]he factors determining whether an act by a
11
judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate to the nature of the act itself, i. e., whether it is a function
12
normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i. e., whether they
13
dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362
14
(1978). “Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in
15
the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12.
16
By rendering decisions in lawsuits Plaintiff filed in federal court, Judges Tuchi
17
and Snow were acting in their judicial capacities and had jurisdiction. See United States
18
v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (“[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine
19
its own jurisdiction.”). Plaintiff argues that the decisions of Judges Tuchi and Snow were
20
malicious and erroneous. See Doc. 6, ¶¶ 9-24. Even if these allegations were true,
21
however, the doctrine of judicial immunity would apply. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11 (finding
22
that “judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice”).
23
24
Because judicial immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims and they cannot be saved
through amendment, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.
25
IT IS ORDERED:
26
1.
27
28
Plaintiff’s (Second) Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is dismissed with
prejudice.
2.
All pending motions (Docs. 2, 4 and 7) are denied as moot.
-2-
1
3.
The Clerk shall terminate this action.
2
Dated this 5th day of November, 2014.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?