Ray v. Rogers

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/17/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD VINCENT RAY, JR., United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Plaintiff, 12 Case No. 16-05483 EJD (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 13 14 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 18 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Honorable Judge Yvonne G. Rogers. Plaintiff’s 20 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be addressed in a separate order. 21 DISCUSSION 22 23 24 A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 28 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 1 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 2 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 3 4 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 5 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 6 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 7 B. Plaintiff is challenging Judge Rogers’ dismissal of a prior § 1983 complaint as 8 9 Plaintiff’s Claims untimely and for failing to afford him equitable tolling under state law. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and requests an order directing “Judge Rogers to re- 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 examine her ruling while referring to the California Equitable Tolling Cases and/or that 12 States Equitable Tolling Doctrines and its leading cases on that subject [sic].” (Id.) 13 A federal judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in his 14 judicial capacity and, unlike the judicial immunity available to state judges sued under § 15 1983, a federal judge’s immunity is not limited to immunity from damages, but extends to 16 actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 17 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996); Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 18 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying judicial immunity to actions under Bivens), cert. denied, 486 19 U.S. 1040 (1988). This is because if a federal judge violates a litigant’s constitutional 20 rights in a proceeding pending in federal court, Congress has provided carefully structured 21 procedures for taking appeals and for petitioning for extraordinary writs in Title 28 of the 22 United States Code. See id. Here, Plaintiff may not circumvent the appeals process by 23 filing a civil action against Judge Rogers in order to obtain the relief he seeks. 24 Accordingly, this action must be dismissed because Judge Rogers is entitled to immunity 25 for her actions performed in her judicial capacity. See Moore, 96 F.3d at 1243. 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 CONCLUSION 1 2 3 4 For the reasons state above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 1/17/2017 Dated: _____________________ ________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Dismissal PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\05483Ray_dism 26 27 28 3

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?