Darrington v. Huffman et al

Filing 5

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIALLO B. DARRINGTON,

Case No.: 16cv2839-JLS (PCL)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

14

RICHARD D. HUFFMAN, et al.,

(ECF No. 4)

15

Defendants.

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), (ECF

18

No. 4). The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, but

19

dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1983 case without prejudice pursuant to its sua sponte

20

screening duty under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See generally Order

21

Granting Mot. to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Compl. Without Prejudice

22

(“Prior Dismissal Order”), ECF No. 3.) Specifically, the Court noted that although it

23

“entertains serious doubts that Plaintiff will be able to cure his Complaint through

24

amendment, Plaintiff is nonetheless granted leave to amend his Complaint.” (Id. at 4

25

(emphasis removed).) This was because:

26
27
28

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
1
16cv2839-JLS (PCL)

1

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.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Id.

9

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint again asserts Section 1983 claims against California

10

Associate Justices Richard D. Huffman, Gilbert Nares, and Terry B. O’Rourke. The claims

11

again center on “[t]he failure of [each Justice] to either reverse the lower court[,] void

12

judgment, or take judicial notice pursuant to [the California Evidence Code] . . . .” (Am.

13

Compl. 2.) As previously explained, this type of suit is explicitly barred both by the

14

doctrine of judicial immunity and Section 1983 itself. Accordingly, Plaintiff again fails the

15

sua sponte screening and—because Plaintiff has for a second time failed to assert a viable

16

claim for relief, and because it appears from both iterations of Plaintiff’s Complaint that

17

the core of Plaintiff’s alleged harm stems from valid judicial proceedings—the Court this

18

time DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. See also, e.g.,

19

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining

20

federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction in “cases brought by state-court losers

21

complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court

22

proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those

23

judgments”).

24

Because this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk SHALL close the file.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: April 20, 2017

27
28
2
16cv2839-JLS (PCL)