Lehmann v. Calhoun et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19 ) shall be INCORPORATED by reference, ADOPTED in its entirety and ordered as follows: 1. Plaintiffs appeal or objection to Judg e Dales Order granting Judge CalhounsFirst Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED. 2. Judge Calhouns Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 9 ) is GRANTED without leave to amend. All claims against Judge Calhoun are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

,
REUBEN D. LEHMANN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:15-CV-00544-EJL-CWD
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
JUDGE CALHOUN, PRSECUTING
ATTORNEY ZACHARY PALL, AND
OFFICER CHRISTENSEN

Defendants.

On March 1, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report
and Recommendation in this matter. (Dkt.19.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), the
parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff Reuben D. Lehmann filed an objection and affidavit of facts.
No response to the objection was filed by Defendants.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court Amay accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.@
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court Ashall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.@ Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. In

ORDER - 1

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, Ato the
extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not
be exercised unless requested by the parties.@ Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939
(internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 (AAbsent
an objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not
required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding.@); see
also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo review not required
for Article III purposes unless requested by the parties) . . . .
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).
In this case, since an objection was filed, the Court conducted a de novo
determination of the Report and Recommendation and Order Re: First Request for Judicial
Notice. The Court has, however, reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Order as
well as the record in this matter and finds no clear error on the face of the record. Moreover,
the Court finds the Report and Recommendation and Order is well-founded in the law
based on the facts of this particular case and this Court is in agreement with the same.
Plaintiff Lehmann argues his civil rights were violated by the state court Magistrate
Judge, the prosecuting attorney and the officer issued the original violation for driving
without privileges since Plaintiff’s driver’s license had been suspended in Oregon.
Lehmann took the matter to trial and a jury found him guilty of violating Idaho Code
§ 18-8001. That matter is currently on appeal.

ORDER - 2

Magistrate Judge Calhoun filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint based on a
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted since judges are entitled to absolute
immunity to suites for monetary damages for their judicial acts. Judge Dale found Judge
Calhoun was entitled to absolute immunity for all actions related to Plaintiff’s criminal
proceedings and that leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiff objects that judicial
immunity is not appropriate where his rights have been violated by the judge’s rulings and
statements in his criminal trial.
The Court agrees with Judge Dale that the motion to dismiss should be granted. The
law is clear that judges are entitled to judicial immunity for their judicial acts. Nixon v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 751-752 (1982). All the alleged improper actions by Judge
Calhoun were acts in performance of his job as a judge and are entitled to absolute
immunity. The Court understands that Plaintiff has a different interpretation of a judge’s
duties and that Plaintiff mistakenly thinks he can serve documents on the Court that require
the Court to respond to his demands. This is not how the judicial system works.
Plaintiff’s arguments regarding Judge Calhoun’s failure to respond to a “Certified
Delegation of Authority Order” is one example of the meritless arguments being made by
Plaintiff. Under the Constitution, the courts are empowered to interpret and apply the laws
of the land. Citizens do not have the authority to issue demands upon a Court. Citizens can
file complaints and motions, but the judge has the ultimate say in a court action and the
judge’s orders are subject to being reviewed on appeal to prevent abuses of discretion or
clearly erroneous rulings. Judges must be free to decide cases based upon the law and
ORDER - 3

without the fear of being sued civilly for fulfilling their duties. This is why we have judicial
immunity for judges when they are performing their judicial duties. That is exactly what
happened in this case. Judge Calhoun was performing his judicial duties in presiding over
the criminal jury trial. Plaintiff can appeal the rulings, but he cannot hold the judge
personally liable for any errors.
Plaintiff’s “authority” for how the judge has violated his rights is not a correct
statement of the law and does not defeat this Court’s finding that Judge Calhoun is entitled
to judicial immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s objection is denied.
Additionally, Plaintiff appears to object to the Court’s order taking judicial notice of
certain court filings, but not his filings. This Court finds the judicial notice taken by Judge
Dale of certain court filings and Idaho statutes is proper under Federal Rules of Evidence
201. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied as his pleadings are merely statements
of his arguments, not judgments of the Court or Idaho statutes. Therefore, his pleadings do
not satisfy the requirements of Rule 201. The objection is denied.

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 19) shall be INCORPORATED by reference, ADOPTED in its
entirety and ordered as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s appeal or objection to Judge Dale’s Order granting Judge Calhoun’s
First Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.
ORDER - 4

2. Judge Calhoun’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED without leave to
amend. All claims against Judge Calhoun are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

DATED: November 1, 2016

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge

ORDER - 5