Straass et al v. Hayes et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. It's clear from the face of the Straasses' complaint that the Court lacks jurisdiction over their case. Thus, this case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/20/15.(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAREN STRAASS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

CASE NO. 15cv1813-LAB (JMA)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.
JUDITH HAYES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Karen and Mark Straass sue four judges involved with their unsuccessful state court

17

action. (Docket no. 1 at ¶ 7.) The state court entered summary judgment against them, the

18

appellate court affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied their petition for review.

19

(Id.) In this lawsuit, the Straasses allege that the judges involved with their state court action

20

violated their due process rights. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

21

I.

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

22

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party who loses in state court is barred from

23

seeking what is essentially appellate review of the state court judgment in federal court

24

based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violated his federal rights.

25

Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). The doctrine applies not only to

26

claims that were actually raised before the state court, but also to claims that are inextricably

27

intertwined with state court determinations. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

28

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 n.16 (1983). A claim is "inextricably intertwined" if it "succeeds
-1-

15cv1813

1

only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it." Pennzoil Co. v.

2

Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987).

3

"Rooker-Feldman concerns a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction," Lance v.

4

Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 n.1 (2007) and courts have an "independent obligation" to

5

determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,

6

514 (2006). Because this lawsuit challenges the state courts' rulings in the Straasses' state

7

court case, the cases are inextricably intertwined.

8

Rooker-Feldman.

9

II.

This action is dismissed under

Fourteenth Amendment

10

The Straasses' claim that this Court has jurisdiction because the state judges' alleged

11

judicial error denied them due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

12

States Constitution. (Docket no. 1 at ¶ 8.) The Straasses essentially claim negligence by

13

the defendants. But, "the Fourteenth Amendment is not a font of tort law to be superimposed

14

upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States." Cnty. of Sacramento

15

v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 848 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). And "the due process

16

guarantee does not entail a body of constitutional law imposing liability whenever someone

17

cloaked with state authority causes harm." Id. Thus, there's no liability under the Fourteenth

18

Amendment.

19

III.

Absolute Judicial Immunity

20

Judges are entitled to absolute immunity "from civil liability for damages for their

21

judicial acts." Mullis v. U.S. Bankr.Court for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir.

22

1987). Judicial immunity is an absolute immunity from suit. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.

23

511, 526 (1985). Absolute judicial immunity applies not only to suits for damages, but also

24

"to actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief." Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d

25

1240, 1244 (9th Cir.1996). Absolute judicial immunity "insulates judges from charges of

26

erroneous acts or irregular action, even when it is alleged that such action was driven by

27

malicious or corrupt motives . . . or when the exercise of judicial authority is flawed by the

28

commission of grave procedural errors." In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (as
-2-

15cv1813

1

amended) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Mireles v. Waco, 502

2

U.S. 9, 11 (1991). "Judicial immunity applies however erroneous the act may have been,

3

and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff." Ashelman v.

4

Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). A judge is

5

protected if: (1) He performed a "judicial act" and (2) he did not act in "clear absence of

6

jurisdiction." Moore, 96 F.3d at 1244. An action taken by a judge in excess of his or her

7

authority "cannot be said to have been taken in the absence of jurisdiction." Mireles, 502

8

U.S. at 13.

9

Here, the allegations against the defendants are based solely on their performance

10

as judicial officers in ruling on the Straasses' state court case. Thus, the defendants are

11

entitled to absolute judicial immunity from all of the Straasses' claims against them.

12

IV.

13
14
15
16

Conclusion
It's clear from the face of the Straasses' complaint that the Court lacks jurisdiction over

their case. Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 20, 2015

17
18

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

15cv1813