Castro v. Box

Filing 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER dismissing with prejudice 2 Complaint filed by Anthony James Castro. Plaintiff shall have 21 days from the date of this Order to amend his complaint to indicate whether there is any on-going violation for which declaratory or injunctive relief is available. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ANTHONY CASTRO,
Case No. 4:10-cv-00484-BLW
Plaintiff,
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
v.
GAYLEN L. BOX,
Defendant.

This Court previously granted Plaintiff Anthony Castro’s Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 6). As a result, the Complaint is subject to review by the Court
to determine whether it should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 or 1915A.
Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the
following Order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Anthony J. Castro brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his constitutional rights under the First, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth
Amendments, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 1986. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Gaylen L. Box, a magistrate judge of the Sixth District in Bannock County, Idaho,
committed the constitutional violations against him, acting under color of state law, when
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1

Judge Box presided over a matter involving Plaintiff’s compliance with a child support
order. Complaint, Dkt. 2 at 2.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is required to review complaints brought by litigants who are granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss
a complaint or any portion thereof that states a claim that is frivolous or malicious, that
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.

If the complaint can be saved by amendment, the plaintiff should be
provided an opportunity to amend. See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th
Cir. 2003). A court should dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove
no set of facts to support the claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v.
King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232 (1984) (citation omitted).
For purposes of its review, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the
complaint, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96
S.Ct. 1848, 1850 (1976).
ANALYSIS
1.

Judicial Immunity
Under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, a judge is not liable for monetary

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2

damages for acts performed in the exercise of his judicial functions. Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349 (1978). To determine whether an act is judicial in nature so that immunity
would apply, a court looks 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.” Id. at 362.
Once it is determined that a judge was acting in his judicial capacity, absolute
immunity applies, “however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in
its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). For example, judicial immunity is not
lost by allegations that a judge conspired with one party to rule against another party: “a
conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome of a judicial
proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity extended
to judges and prosecutors.” Id., 793 F.2d at 1078. Absolute immunity for judicial
officers “is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person
to whom it attaches.” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227 (1988).
Here, Plaintiff acknowledges that the Defendant was acting in his capacity as a
judge presiding over matters concerning Plaintiff. The Court here finds that Defendant is
entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and therefore dismisses any claims by Plaintiff for
monetary relief.
2.

Eleventh Amendment Immunity
The United States Supreme Court has determined that the Eleventh Amendment

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3

generally prohibits litigants from bring suits against states, state agencies, and state
officials acting in their official capacity. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993). There are three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment
immunity.
First, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit when the state unequivocally
consents to be sued in federal court. That has clearly not occurred here.
Second, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit when a statute allows suits to
be brought against states in federal court. The Plaintiff has not directed the Court’s
attention to any such statute.
Third, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit against a government official for
prospective injunctive relief. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Actions seeking
prospective injunctive relief against officials in their official capacities are not treated as
actions against the State. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n.10,
(1989). The Young case carves out a narrow exception, “designed to permit the
vindication of what the court sees as the paramount interest in the application of the
constitution and federal law to continuing or impending conduct.” Watkins v. Blinzinger,
789 F.2d 474, 484 (7th Cir. 1986).
However, the federal district court lacks jurisdiction to hear challenges to state
court decisions arising out of judicial proceedings, even concerning alleged constitutional
violations; such actions are reserved for review by the United States Supreme Court.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983) (citing 28
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4

U.S.C. § 1257). Also, where there is no claimed continuing violation of federal law, a
federal court may not issue declaratory or injunctive relief. Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S.
64, 71 (1985).
Based on Plaintiff’s Complaint in this matter, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
Plaintiff’s challenges to Defendant’s decisions from Plaintiff’s state court proceedings.
Regarding Plaintiff’s request for injunctive and declaratory relief, it is unclear whether
any continuing violation is alleged, such that any relief is available. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have 21 days
to amend his Complaint to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2.

Plaintiff shall have 21 days from the date of this Order to amend his
complaint to indicate whether there is any on-going violation for which
declaratory or injunctive relief is available.
DATED: October 21, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Judge

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 5