Murray v. Murguia et al

Filing 10

ORDER GRANTING re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Sara Murray ; ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE;, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Sara Murray, 9 Emergency MOTIO N for Preliminary Injunction for Ongoing ADA Discrimination and Retaliation (Plaintiff needs ADA accommodations in Instant Case also prior to a Ruling on this Motion) filed by Sara Murray, 1 Complaint filed by Sara Murray. Signed by Magis trate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/11/2025. Objections due by 3/26/2025. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Case No. 25-cv-01364-KAW
SARA MURRAY,

8

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION;
REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT
JUDGE; REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
CASE AND DENY MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL AND MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
MARY MURGUIA, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9
13
14

On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff Sara Murray filed this civil action and application to

15

proceed in forma pauperis. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary

16

injunction. (Dkt. No. 9) Having considered the application, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

17

application to proceed in forma pauperis. After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

18

1915, the Court REASSIGNS the case to a district judge and RECOMMENDS that the case be

19

dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion for a

20

preliminary injunction be denied as moot.1

21

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

22

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time

23

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or

24

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

25

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

26
27
28

1

On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a declination. (Dkt. No. 7.)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

2

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997). A complaint may also be dismissed for

3

failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint,

5

therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff,

7

courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.”

8

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se

9

plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is

10

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”

11

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation

12

marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
II.

13

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Plaintiff brings claims under Title

14
15

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

16

against Defendants Chief Judge Mary Murguia and the United States Court of Appeals for the

17

Ninth Circuit. (Compl. at 2-3.2) Plaintiff states that she suffers from PTSD-related brain injuries

18

and cognitive impairments that prevent her from representing herself in legal proceedings without

19

significant medical harm. (Compl. at 9.) On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a judicial

20

complaint to Defendants regarding a federal judge in the District of Western Washington.

21

(Compl. at 11.) In that complaint, Plaintiff requested ADA accommodations in the form of

22

appointment of counsel. (Compl. at 11.) In January 2025, however, Defendants failed to provide

23

the requested ADA accommodations, thus depriving Plaintiff of her ability to fully participate in

24

the judicial complaint process. (Compl. at 12.)
Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law for several reasons. First, Plaintiff’s claims are

25
26
27
28

2

The Court refers to the ECF header pagination.
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

barred by judicial immunity. The Supreme Court has long held that “judges of courts of superior

2

or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are

3

in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Stump

4

v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978) (internal quotation omitted). “[T]he scope of the

5

judge’s jurisdiction must be construed broadly when the issue is the immunity of the judge. A

6

judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done

7

maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he

8

has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 356-57 (internal quotation omitted). Here,

9

Plaintiff is challenging the ruling of Chief Judge Murguia and the Ninth Circuit as a whole

10

denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. As this ruling was made in the course of

11

their judicial actions, judicial immunity applies.

12
Second, neither Title II of the ADA nor § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply to the federal
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

judiciary. Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 217 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Title II of the ADA
is not applicable to the federal government.”). Rather, Title II prohibits discrimination on the
basis of a disability by a “public entity,” which in turn is defined as “any State or local
government,” “any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State
or States or local government,” and “the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any
commuter authority.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, in turn, does
not apply to the judicial branch. Rather, it applies to any “program or activity receiving Federal

20
financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the
21

United States Postal Service.” 29 U.S.C. § 794. Program or activity, in turn, is defined as the

22
operations of a state or local government, college or university, local educational agency, or
23
corporation or other private organization. See Bush v. United States, 627 Fed. Appx. 928, 930
24
25
26

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the Rehabilitation Act only pertains to programs of the executive, not judicial,
branch”); In re Chapman, 777 F. Supp. 2d 196, 197-98 (D. Me. 2011) (“The Rehabilitation Act
does not cover the judicial branch.”); Hollingsworth v. Duff, 444 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (D.D.C. 2006)

27
28

3

1

(“the Rehabilitation Act does not cover judicial branch agencies.”).

2

Finally, Plaintiff’s complaint is effectively an appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to not

3

appoint counsel for Plaintiff. Thus, to grant Plaintiff the relief sought would require that a district

4

court overturn the decision of an appellate court. The Court knows of no authority that permits

5

such relief. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the case be dismissed with prejudice

6

because Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

III.

CONCLUSION

8

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with

9

the recommendation that the action be DISMISSED with prejudice and that the motion to appoint

10

counsel and the motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED as moot. The Court GRANTS

11

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

12

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge

13

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D.

14

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

15

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS

16

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

17

Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk for assistance—a

18

free service for pro se litigants—by calling [phone] to make an appointment. While the

19

Help Desk does not provide legal representation, a licensed attorney may assist Plaintiff in

20

determining whether there are viable claims, and how to properly plead them.

21

Plaintiff may also wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants

22

in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se litigants, is available

23

online at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2025
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28

4