Rod Anthony Huff v. Airport Courthouse
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT IS ORDERED THAT the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Order for details. (dml)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROD ANTHONY HUFF,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
Case No. CV 20-08747 AB (RAO)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL
AIRPORT COURTHOUSE,
Defendant.
16
17
On September 21, 2020, Plaintiff Rod Anthony Huff (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
18
pro se and who has not paid the filing fee nor filed a proper request to proceed in
19
forma pauperis, filed a document entitled “Petition to Summons of a Lawsuit in a
20
Civil Action” (hereinafter, “Complaint or “Compl.”), naming the state courthouse
21
located at 11701 South La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, as the sole defendant
22
and seeking “$30 trillion” in damages. Compl. at 1. For the following reasons, the
23
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
24
Plaintiff alleges that, in May 2020, he was brought before a Los Angeles
25
County Superior Court judge for a crime that he did not commit. Compl. at 2.
26
During the proceedings, Plaintiff informed the superior court that he had
27
“previously abdicated legal document(s) defined pursuant to (UCC Article 3). TO
28
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, TO THE UNITED STATES
1
TREASURY on the behalf of (sover[ei]gn immunity).” Id. He alleges that the
2
court did not “use proper discretion in the matter(s) previously stated,” and that the
3
case was thereafter referred to the mental health department. Id. Plaintiff alleges
4
that he is now being held at a mental health unit. Compl. at 2-3. Plaintiff does not
5
seek injunctive or declaratory relief; rather, he demands $30 trillion in damages,
6
seemingly for Defendant’s violation of his right under the United States
7
Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when it referred him to
8
the mental health unit. Id. at 1, 2.
As noted above, Plaintiff has sued the superior court. Judges and those
9
10
performing judge-like functions, however, are absolutely immune from damage
11
liability for acts performed in their official capacities. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d
12
1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Richardson v. Koshiba, 693 F.2d 911, 913 (9th
13
Cir. 1982)); see also Ingram v. Long Beach Superior Court, 2018 WL 4587115, at
14
*5 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) (dismissing damages claims against superior court
15
judge as barred by judicial immunity), adopted by 2018 WL 4566842 (C.D. Cal.
16
Sept. 18, 2018). Judicial immunity applies “however erroneous the act may have
17
been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the
18
plaintiff.” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200, 106 S. Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d
19
507 (1985).
Furthermore, because the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff would be unable to
20
21
allege any facts based upon the circumstances he challenges that would state a
22
cognizable claim, amendment would be futile in this case. See Hartmann v. Cal.
23
Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court
24
may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”).
25
\\
26
\\
27
\\
28
\\
2
1
2
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Complaint is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
3
4
5
6
DATED: October 15, 2020
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?