Darrington v. Huffman et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE With Prejudice. As previously explained, this type of suit is explicitly barred both by the doctrine of judicial immunity and Section 1983 itself. Accordingly, plaintiff again fails the sua sponte screening andbecause plaint iff has for a second time failed to assert a viable claim for relief, and because it appears from both iterations of plaintiff's Complaint that the core of plaintiff's alleged harm stems from valid judicial proceedingsthe Court this time dismisses with prejudice plaintiff's Amended Complaint. This concludes the litigation in this matter. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/20/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DIALLO B. DARRINGTON,
Case No.: 16cv2839-JLS (PCL)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
RICHARD D. HUFFMAN, et al.,
(ECF No. 4)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), (ECF
No. 4). The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, but
dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1983 case without prejudice pursuant to its sua sponte
screening duty under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See generally Order
Granting Mot. to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Compl. Without Prejudice
(“Prior Dismissal Order”), ECF No. 3.) Specifically, the Court noted that although it
“entertains serious doubts that Plaintiff will be able to cure his Complaint through
amendment, Plaintiff is nonetheless granted leave to amend his Complaint.” (Id. at 4
(emphasis removed).) This was because:
Plaintiff’s claims against the three named Defendants are for actions taken in
their judicial capacities, see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978)
(“[W]hether an act by a judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate[s] to the nature of the
act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to
the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his
judicial capacity.”), and Section 1983 explicitly prohibits Plaintiff’s requested
form of relief: “[I]n any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or
omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not
be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable[,]” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although there may well be other
deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint, this alone is sufficient to warrant
dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint again asserts Section 1983 claims against California
Associate Justices Richard D. Huffman, Gilbert Nares, and Terry B. O’Rourke. The claims
again center on “[t]he failure of [each Justice] to either reverse the lower court[,] void
judgment, or take judicial notice pursuant to [the California Evidence Code] . . . .” (Am.
Compl. 2.) As previously explained, this type of suit is explicitly barred both by the
doctrine of judicial immunity and Section 1983 itself. Accordingly, Plaintiff again fails the
sua sponte screening and—because Plaintiff has for a second time failed to assert a viable
claim for relief, and because it appears from both iterations of Plaintiff’s Complaint that
the core of Plaintiff’s alleged harm stems from valid judicial proceedings—the Court this
time DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. See also, e.g.,
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining
federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction in “cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court
proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those
Because this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk SHALL close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2017
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?