Kinney v. State Bar of California et al
Filing
31
ORDER GRANTING JUSTICE ROGER BOREN AND JUDGE LUIS LAVIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 27, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
CHARLES KINNEY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
No. C-13-1396 MMC
ORDER GRANTING JUSTICE ROGER
BOREN AND JUDGE LUIS LAVIN’S
MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING
HEARING
v.
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
Before the Court is the motion to dismiss, filed August 28, 2013, by California Court
18
of Appeal Justice Roger W. Boren (“Justice Boren”) and California Superior Court Judge
19
Luis A. Lavin (“Judge Lavin”). Plaintiff Charles Kinney has filed opposition, to which Justice
20
Boren and Judge Lavin have replied. Also before the Court is plaintiffs’ response, filed
21
September 20, 2013, to the Court’s order of August 21, 2013, directing plaintiff to show
22
cause why his claims against Justice Boren and Judge Lavin should not be dismissed.
23
Having read and considered the above-referenced filings, the Court finds the matters
24
suitable for determination on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the
25
hearing scheduled for October 18, 2013, and rules as follows.
26
Plaintiff’s claims for an award of damages against Justice Boren and Judge Lavin,
27
which claims are based on judicial rulings, are, for the reasons stated in the motion to
28
dismiss and in the Court’s order to show cause, subject to dismissal, without leave to
1
amend. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56, 364 (1978) (holding state court
2
judges sued for engaging in “judicial acts” are “immune from damages liability” irrespective
3
of whether ruling was “in error”); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986)
4
(holding judges “are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their
5
official capacities”).
6
Further, plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, by which plaintiff seeks
7
relief from orders issued by Justice Boren and Judge Lavin, are, for the reasons stated in
8
the motion to dismiss and in the Court’s order to show cause, subject to dismissal, without
9
leave to amend. See Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive
10
Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296-97 (1970) (holding “lower federal courts possess no power
11
whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions”; vacating district court order
12
enjoining enforcement of state court order).
13
Accordingly, Justice Boren and Judge Lavin’s motion to dismiss is hereby
14
GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims against them are hereby DISMISSED, without leave to
15
amend.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: September 27, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?