Miroyan v. Manley et al
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C.Spero on 5/6/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
MICHAEL H. MIROYAN,
10
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-00958-JCS (PR)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
12
STEPHEN MANLEY, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
INTRODUCTION
16
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil
17
18
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against a state judge in
19
whose criminal court plaintiff appeared as a defendant, and against his court-appointed
20
attorney. After reviewing his allegations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court
21
DISMISSES the complaint.1
DISCUSSION
22
23
A.
Standard of Review
24
In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that
25
is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
26
1
27
28
Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 3.) The magistrate
judge, then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been
served or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530,
532 (5th Cir. 1995).
1
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
3
Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a
4
5
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
6
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
7
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
8
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
9
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
12
(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
13
14
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
15
violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
16
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
17
B.
Legal Claims
18
Plaintiff alleges that (1) state court judge Stephen Manley violated his constitutional
19
rights by assigning Francis Cole as his attorney, declaring him mentally ill, ordering him to
20
take his medications, and disallowing bail; and (2) his court-appointed attorney Francis
21
Cole violated his constitutional rights through committing malpractice and having a
22
conflict of interest. Neither set of allegations states a claim for relief under § 1983.
23
A state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts
24
performed in his judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967);
25
Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (ruling on a motion and
26
exercising control over a courtroom are normal judicial functions, e.g., judge who denied
27
disability accommodation to litigant was absolutely immune). “A judge will not be
28
deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or in
2
1
excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the
2
„clear absence of all jurisdiction.‟” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)
3
(citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351 (1872)); see also Mireles v. Waco,
4
502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or
5
malice); Sadorski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (mistake alone is not
6
sufficient to deprive a judge of absolute immunity).
7
The doctrine of judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief in § 1983
8
actions. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d
9
1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). However, § 1983 itself provides that “in any action
brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer‟s judicial
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
12
declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
13
Claim 1 is DISMISSED. All of the actions described by plaintiff (denying bail,
14
appointing an attorney) are acts performed in Manley‟s judicial capacity and he is
15
therefore immune to any claims for money damages, despite plaintiff‟s allegations of bad
16
faith and malice.
17
Any claims for injunctive relief are also DISMISSED. Plaintiff has not alleged, nor
18
is there anything in the complaint to support an inference, that a declaratory decree was
19
violated, or that declaratory relief was unavailable. Under these circumstances, Manley is
20
immune from claims for injunctive relief.
21
Claim 2 is also DISMISSED. Cole, whether a private or a court-appointed attorney
22
or a public defender, is not liable under § 1983. Private actors are not liable under § 1983.
23
See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Also, a state-appointed defense attorney
24
“does not qualify as a state actor when engaged in his general representation of a criminal
25
defendant.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321 (1981). Polk County “noted,
26
without deciding, that a public defender may act under color of state law while performing
27
certain administrative [such as making hiring and firing decisions], and possibly
28
investigative, functions.” Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 54 (1992) (citing Polk
3
1
County, 454 U.S. at 325). Because Cole does not qualify as a state actor under § 1983,
2
plaintiff‟s allegations fail to state a claim for relief.
It appears that plaintiff believes his detention in state custody is unconstitutional.
3
4
If he wishes to pursue a federal challenge to his custody, he may file a federal habeas
5
action.
6
CONCLUSION
7
Plaintiff‟s claims are DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of
8
defendants, and close the file.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Dated: May 6, 2016
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MICHAEL H. MIROYAN,
Case No. 16-cv-00958-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
10
STEPHEN MANLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
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 May 6, 2016, 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.
16
17
18
19
Michael H. Miroyan ID: ID: ATT211
Elmwood Correctional Facility
701 S Abel Street
Milpitas, CA 95035
20
21
Dated: May 6, 2016
22
23
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
24
25
26
By:________________________
Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO
27
28
5
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?