Murphy-Barnes v. Bank of America et al

Filing 21

ORDER of dismissal. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/25/2014. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 PAULETTE R. MURPHY-BARNES, 7 Plaintiff, No. C 14-0914 PJH 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 BANK OF AMERICA, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Defendants. _______________________________/ 12 Plaintiff in the above-captioned case has filed suit against Bank of America, 13 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), and Judge Marshall Whitley of the 14 Alameda County Superior Court. Bank of America and MERS have moved to dismiss the 15 complaint, and the court will consider that motion after plaintiff has had an opportunity to file 16 an opposition brief. However, as to Judge Whitley, the court finds that it lacks subject 17 matter jurisdiction over any claims asserted against him, and thus DISMISSES all such 18 claims. 19 Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Alameda Superior Court Judges listed in the Complaint 20 listed in the Complaint [sic] hindered the execution of the laws of the State, and of the 21 United States within the State, depriving [plaintiff] of her right, privilege, immunity, and 22 protections named in the Constitution and secured by law.” Even if the court could discern 23 the specific nature of the claim(s) asserted against Judge Whitley (who is the only judge 24 named in the complaint), any claim seeking damages (and any claim against a Superior 25 Court Judge based on the conduct of judicial proceedings) would be barred, because a 26 state court judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in 27 his judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial 28 immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 1 To the extent that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring the 2 federal court to supervise ongoing state judicial proceedings, the court will refrain from 3 issuing any such injunction as a matter of comity. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 539 4 (1984); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971). by Judge Whitley, the claim is barred. A federal district court is prohibited from exercising 7 subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is “a de facto appeal” from a state court 8 judgment. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). A federal district 9 court may not examine claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court decisions, 10 “even where the party does not directly challenge the merits of the state court's decision 11 For the Northern District of California To the extent that plaintiff is seeking what amounts to an appeal of an order issued 6 United States District Court 5 but rather brings an indirect challenge based on constitutional principles.” Bianchi v. 12 Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. 13 Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006). 14 15 16 17 For these reasons, all claims asserted against Judge Whitley are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 25, 2014 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 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?