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)

Download PDF
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?