Williams v. Leng

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT and Denying 2 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/07/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AKHEEM D. WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MICHAEL J. LENG,

15

Defendant.

No. 1:17-cv-01256-DAD-SKO

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. No. 2)

16
17
18

On September 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint naming United States Magistrate Judge

19

Michael J. Seng1 as the lone defendant. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff at the same time filed a motion to

20

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 1.) The court has screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant

21

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and will dismiss it since the named defendant is entitled to judicial

22

immunity, as more fully explained below.
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Magistrate Judge Seng violated his constitutional

23
24

rights by dismissing a prior case he had filed, Akheem D. Williams v. Patrick Jurdon, et al., No.

25

1:17-cv-00860-LJO-MJS. A review of the docket in the case earlier case referred to be plaintiff

26

reveals that Magistrate Judge Seng did issue findings and recommendations on September 11,

27
28

1

Judge Seng is incorrectly identified in the complaint and the caption of plaintiff’s complaint as
Michael “Leng.”
1

1

2017, recommending that plaintiff’s complaint filed in that case be dismissed without leave to

2

amend.2 Those findings and recommendations have not yet been adopted or rejected by the

3

assigned district judge.

4

Regardless of whether those findings and recommendations are eventually adopted, it is

5

clear plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim against the named defendant in this action. Plaintiff

6

is attempting to state a claim against a judge of this court based solely on that judge’s issuance of

7

findings and recommendations as a judicial officer. That sort of claim is barred. “It has long

8

been established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts ‘done by them in the

9

exercise of their judicial functions.’” Miller v. Davis, 521 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008)

10

(quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1871)); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435

11

U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978). “[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate

12

assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Therefore, even if plaintiff

13

had alleged defendant acted maliciously or in bad faith, which he has not done, defendant’s

14

immunity would still be absolute. Id.; see also Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199–200

15

(1985). “As long as the judge’s ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s subject

16

matter jurisdiction, immunity applies.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986).

17

Therefore, it is clear any claim plaintiff may attempt to state against defendant here is

18

barred by judicial immunity. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (noting

19

court may dismiss a complaint “if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

20

that could be proved consistent with the allegations”). Moreover, it is also clear that, even

21

construing the allegations of the complaint liberally, plaintiff can prove no set of facts under

22

which he would be entitled to relief and amendment could not circumvent judicial immunity here.

23

See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012); Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1201,

24

1205 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, this case will be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

2

A court may take judicial notice of its own files and records. Fed. R. Evid. 201; Gerritsen v.
Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
2

1

amend. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as having been rendered moot

2

by this order. (Doc. No. 2.)3

3

For the reasons set forth above:

4

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend and prejudice and with

5

prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim;

6

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as having been

7

rendered moot by this order; and

8
9

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

December 7, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Plaintiff is advised that the appropriate way to register an objection to defendant’s findings and
recommendations in another case in this court is to file objections within that case, in accordance
with the court’s orders therein.
3