Ingram v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/24/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
CHADERICK A. INGRAM,

12
13
14

No. C 12-03703 JSW

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

15

Defendant.

16
/
17
18

Now before the Court is the application filed by Plaintiff Chaderick A. Ingram to

19

proceed in forma pauperis. Having considered the papers filed in support of the request, the

20

Court finds the matter appropriate for decision on the papers, and rules as follows. The Court

21

has determined that the application should be DENIED at this time because this action must be

22

dismissed for the reasons stated below.

23

Federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction

24

sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12;

25

Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court determines that

26

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

27

12(h)(3).

28

California superior courts are courts of general, unlimited jurisdiction and can render

1

enforceable judgments in practically any type of case. However, federal courts have limited

2

jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the Constitution or Congress

3

authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity of citizenship (where the parties

4

are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to which the United States

5

is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375

6

(1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of

7

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377.

8
9

“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of
damages.” Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
356-57 (1978). An act is considered “judicial” when it is a function normally performed by a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. See Stump, 435 U.S. at 362;

12

see also Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a municipal

13

court commissioner was immune from suit). “Judicial immunity applies ‘however erroneous

14

the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the

15

plaintiff.’” Id. (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985)); see also Stump, 435 U.S.

16

at 356 (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the act he took was in error, was

17

done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.”). A judge lacks immunity only when he or

18

she acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction ... or performs an act that is not ‘judicial’ in

19

nature.” Ashelman, 793 F.2d 1078 (internal citation omitted).

20

To determine if an individual acted in an official judicial capacity, a court must analyze

21

whether: “(1) the precise act is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge’s

22

chambers; (3) the controversy centered around a case then pending before the judge; and (4) the

23

events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her

24

official capacity.” Id. (citation omitted). Having carefully reviewed the allegations in

25

Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court concludes that each of the four factors demonstrate that the

26

Defendant judges were acting within their roles as judicial officers and are therefore immune

27

from liability.

28
2

1

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to

2

amend. Plaintiff shall have until no later than October 29, 2012, to file an amended complaint

3

to set forth some factual basis to support a claim with federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file a

4

renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis upon filing an amended complaint. Failure to

5

file timely an amended complaint shall result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: September 24, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

CHADERICK A. INGRAM,
Plaintiff,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Case Number: CV12-03703 JSW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al,
Defendant.

/

13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on September 24, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter
listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an
inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Chaderick A. Ingram
1060 North Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95838
Dated: September 24, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk