Miroyan v. Manley

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 5/10/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

MICHAEL H. MIROYAN,

7

Case No. 16-cv-01084-JCS (PR)

Plaintiff,
8

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9

STEPHEN V. MANLEY,

10

Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil

14
15

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against a state judge in

16

whose criminal court plaintiff appeared as a defendant, and against the state court‟s clerks.

17

After reviewing his allegations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court DISMISSES the

18

complaint.1
DISCUSSION

19
20

A.

Standard of Review

21

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that

22

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

23

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

25

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

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).

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a

1
2

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

3

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

4

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

5

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

7

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

8

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

9

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

12

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

13

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

14

B.

15

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that (1) state court judge Stephen Manley violated his constitutional

16

rights by (a) appointing a defense attorney who had a conflict of interest; (b) having a

17

“vindictive disparity of sentencing”; (c) never letting him speak in court, removing him

18

from the proceedings and then sealing the transcripts; and (d) ordering the court clerks to

19

not file his pleadings. He also alleges that (2) the state court clerks are violating his rights

20

by obeying Manley‟s instructions. Neither set of allegations states a claim for relief under

21

§ 1983.

22

A state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts

23

performed in his judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967);

24

Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (ruling on a motion and

25

exercising control over a courtroom are normal judicial functions, e.g., judge who denied

26

disability accommodation to litigant was absolutely immune). “A judge will not be

27

deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or in

28

excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the
2

1

„clear absence of all jurisdiction.‟” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)

2

(citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351 (1872)); see also Mireles v. Waco,

3

502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or

4

malice); Sadorski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (mistake alone is not

5

sufficient to deprive a judge of absolute immunity).

6

The doctrine of judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief in § 1983

7

actions. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d

8

1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). However, § 1983 itself provides that “in any action

9

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer‟s judicial
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

12

Claim 1 is DISMISSED. All of the actions described by plaintiff (appointing an

13

attorney, imposing sentence, controlling his courtroom and the filing process) are acts

14

performed in Manley‟s judicial capacity. He is therefore immune to any claims for money

15

damages, despite plaintiff‟s allegations of malice and bad faith.

16

Any claims for injunctive relief are also DISMISSED. Plaintiff has not alleged, nor

17

is there anything in the complaint to support an inference, that a declaratory decree was

18

violated, or that declaratory relief was unavailable. Under these circumstances, Manley is

19

immune from claims for injunctive relief.

20

Claim 2 is DISMISSED because the court‟s clerks are also immune from suit. The

21

Supreme Court has recognized that some officials perform special functions which,

22

because of their similarity to functions that would have been immune when Congress

23

enacted § 1983, deserve absolute protection from damages liability. Buckley v.

24

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268-69 (1993). This immunity extends to individuals

25

performing functions necessary to the judicial process. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889,

26

895-96 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the common law, judges, prosecutors, trial witnesses, and

27

jurors were absolutely immune for such critical functions. Id. at 896. The Court has taken

28

a “functional approach” to the question of whether absolute immunity applies in a given
3

1

situation, meaning that it looks to “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of

2

the actor who performed it.” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 269 (1993) (quoting Forrester v. White,

3

484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988)). Accordingly, state actors are granted absolute immunity from

4

damages liability in suits under § 1983 for actions taken while performing a duty

5

functionally comparable to one for which officials were immune at common law. Miller,

6

335 F.3d at 897. Here, the clerks‟ declination to file is necessarily a part of the judicial

7

process and therefore they are immune from suit for damages.

8

Also, if plaintiff seeks relief from Manley‟s actions, the proper method is to appeal

9

the judge‟s decisions to the state appellate court, or file a federal habeas action, rather than

10

file a suit under § 1983.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION

12

Plaintiff‟s claims are DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of

13

defendants, and close the file.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: May 10, 2016
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

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-01084-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

STEPHEN V. MANLEY,
Defendant.

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 10, 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

Michael H. Miroyan ID: ID: ATT211
Elmwood Correctional Facility
701 S Abel Street
Milpitas, CA 95035

19
20
21

Dated: May 10, 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