Powell v. Bradstreet et al

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer adopting 9 Report and Recommendation and dismissing case. (crblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lsS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 TAMIKO POWELL, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 No. 17-cv-02257 CRB ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE v. ANGELA BRADSTREET, et al., Defendants. / 16 17 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Corley’s Report and Recommendation 18 (hereinafter “R&R,” dkt. 9), as well as Plaintiff Tamiko Powell’s objections to the R&R, 19 contained in a document entitled, “Answer to Complaint for Order Reassigning and Report 20 and Recommendation to Dismiss” (hereinafter “Answer,” dkt. 11). Notwithstanding 21 Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the R&R correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and 22 ADOPTS it in every respect. The Court notes that while Plaintiff argues that Defendant 23 Bradstreet “voided her contract of ‘judicial immunity’” through her alleged misdeeds, 24 Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Bradstreet, in mediating Plaintiff’s dispute, 25 performed a function bearing a close association to the judicial process. See Answer at 3 26 (“Ms. Bradstreet is an officer of this Honorable Court. . . . Ms. Bradstreet took the 27 responsibility given to her by the Courts. . .”); see also R&R at 4 (explaining that courts 28 extend absolute judicial immunity to officers whose functions closely resemble the judicial 1 process). Plaintiff similarly contends that the remaining two Defendants—the Honorable 2 Ronald Quidachay and the Honorable Ernst Goldsmith—should forfeit their judicial 3 immunity because they allegedly decided “to protect Ms. Bradstreet instead of interceding to 4 make sure all participant’s [sic] followed the letter of the law.” See Answer at 3. But a 5 “judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done 6 maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 7 356–57 (1978). Accordingly, both because the Defendants are entitled to judicial immunity 8 and because Plaintiff failed to state a constitutional violation, see generally R&R, the 9 Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: August 4, 2017 13 CHARLES R. BREYER 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 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?