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)

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