Bator et al v. Siskiyou County et al
Filing
32
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 02/17/2017 RECOMMENDING that the Judicial Defendants' Unopposed 8 Motion to Dismiss be granted; the County Defendants' Unopposed 12 Motion to Dismiss be granted; and the action be Dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections are due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY J. BATOR, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
No. 2:16-CV-2073-GEB-CMK
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SISKIYOU COUNTY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, bring this civil action. Pending before the
18
court are the following unopposed motions: (1) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) filed by defendants
19
Hon. Laura Masunaga, Hon. Joann Bicego, and Virginia Rhea (“judicial defendants”); and
20
(2) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) filed by defendants Siskiyou County, Siskiyou County Health
21
and Human Services, Judy Carter, Suzanne Hogue, and Alix Byrd (“county defendants”).
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
1
This action proceeds on the original complaint filed on August 30, 2016.1 The
1
2
judicial defendants argue that the complaint must be dismissed as to them because they are
3
entitled to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. The judicial defendants also argue that the entire
4
complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine. The county defendants argue
5
that the complaint should be dismissed because it contains no federal claims and remand to state
6
court would be futile.
7
Judges are absolutely immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within
8
the jurisdiction of their courts. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988)
9
(per curiam). This immunity is lost only when the judge acts in the clear absence of all
10
jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature. See id. Judges retain their immunity
11
even when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,
12
11 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978), and when they are
13
accused of acting in error, see Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999).
14
This immunity extends to the actions of court personnel when they act as “an integral part of the
15
judicial process.” See Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987).
16
The judicial defendants are a state Superior Court judge, a Commissioner, and a
17
court investigator. Plaintiffs’ allegations against these defendants all relate to defendants’
18
official conduct. Therefore, the judicial defendants are immune.
19
Under the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to
20
hear matters already decided in state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413
21
(1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine
22
applies in cases “brought by state court losers complaining of injuries caused by state court
23
judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court
24
review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.,
25
26
1
Because plaintiffs paid the filing fee, the complaint was not subject to screening
by the court prior to service.
2
1
544 U.S. 280 (2005). An exception, inapplicable here, would be where Congress expressly
2
grants federal courts jurisdiction to review state court judgments (such as habeas corpus, for
3
example).
4
Here, a review of the complaint reflects that all of plaintiffs’ claims arise from
5
their dissatisfaction with the results of state court child custody proceedings. This court should
6
abstain.
7
Finally, the court agrees with the county defendants that it lacks subject matter
8
jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Plaintiffs allege subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
9
U.S.C. § 1343, which confers original jurisdiction in the district court for any civil action for
10
damages resulting from violation of civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or
11
protected by federal law. Plaintiffs however, allege no facts which would suggest any such
12
violations. Rather, the few factual allegations contained in the complaint all relate to state court
13
proceedings. Moreover, each of the more than 650 “counts” set forth in the complaint cites a
14
provision of state law. The complaint contains to reference to any legal theory of damages
15
cognizable under federal law. Though plaintiffs cite 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 in the caption
16
of the complaint, none of the “counts” references these federal statutes and the complaint is
17
devoid of facts consistent with violations of those statutes.
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
3
1
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:
2
1.
The judicial defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) be granted;
3
2.
The county defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be
5
3.
This action be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
6
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
7
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
8
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
9
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
4
granted; and
10
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
11
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
13
14
15
16
DATED: February 17, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
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?