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)
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?