Hubbard v. Austin et al
Filing
4
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/23/16 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ZANE HUBBARD,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
No. 2:15-CV-2279-JAM-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GARY S. AUSTIN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
22
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
23
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
24
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
25
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
26
This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,
1
1
84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied
2
if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon
3
which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must
4
allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support
5
the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
6
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
7
and conclusory.
8
9
10
For defendants, plaintiff names 12 judges of this court. Plaintiff claims that
defendants “have me unlawfully, and innocently, entrapped and falsely imprisoned in a state
prison. . . .” Plaintiff requests that the defendant judges be “punished for contempt.”
11
Judges are absolutely immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within
12
the jurisdiction of their courts. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988)
13
(per curiam). This immunity is lost only when the judge acts in the clear absence of all
14
jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature. See id. Judges retain their immunity
15
even when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,
16
11 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978), and when they are
17
accused of acting in error, see Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999).
18
Plaintiff in this case does not allege any facts which would suggest that the
19
defendant judges acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or performed acts non-judicial in
20
nature. Given that plaintiff fails to allege facts which would pierce judicial immunity, this matter
21
should be dismissed.
22
Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be
23
cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of
24
the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
25
///
26
///
2
1
2
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be
dismissed.
3
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
4
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
5
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
6
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
7
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
8
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
9
10
11
12
DATED: February 23, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?