Vonrusten v. Davis et al

Filing 4

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM VONRUSTEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-10549
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

v.
JUDGE LINDA DAVIS and
JUDGE VIVIANO,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on
February 29, 2012
PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
In his pro se complaint in this case, Plaintiff William VonRusten seeks an award
of $550,000 in damages from two state court judges, alleging that these judges violated
his federal constitutional rights in the course of state court criminal proceedings.
Accompanying Plaintiff’s complaint was an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
which the Court has now granted. Having reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s nowfiled complaint, the Court finds that this suit must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) as “seek[ing] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief,” and under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for “fail[ure] to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.”

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court nevertheless is directed to “dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines,” inter alia, that the plaintiff’s complaint “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief,” or if the complaint “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.” In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to withstand
scrutiny on either of these grounds. First, Plaintiff’s request for an award of damages
against the Defendant state court judges runs directly afoul of the judicial immunity
enjoyed by these Defendants, which broadly protects them against suits brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking to recover for alleged violations of federal constitutional
rights. See Stern v. Mascio, 262 F.3d 600, 606 (6th Cir. 2001); Kircher v. City of
Ypsilanti, 458 F. Supp.2d 439, 446 (E.D. Mich. 2006). To the extent that Plaintiff’s pro
se complaint could be construed as seeking an award of injunctive relief, and not just
money damages, such an award is precluded under the express terms of § 1983 itself. See
Massey v. Stosberg, No. 04-5344, 136 F. App’x 719, 720 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2005); Kircher,
458 F. Supp.2d at 447-48.
Next, even assuming Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims against the two
Defendant state court judges were not barred by judicial immunity, these claims would be
subject to dismissal on at least two other grounds. First, to the extent that Plaintiff’s
claims implicate the lawfulness of his criminal convictions or resulting incarceration, he
cannot recover damages under § 1983 absent a showing that the challenged conviction or
sentence “has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
2

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question
by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 487, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Second, Plaintiff is precluded under the RookerFeldman doctrine from using the present suit as a vehicle for complaining of adverse
rulings by the Defendant state court judges or injuries allegedly resulting from state court
judgments. See Kircher, 458 F. Supp.2d at 448-49; Leach v. Manning, 105 F. Supp.2d
707, 713 (E.D. Mich. 2000). Rather, to the extent that Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the
rulings of the Defendant judges, his proper recourse was to challenge these rulings before
the Michigan appellate courts. Against this backdrop, Plaintiff has failed to state a viable
claim against the Defendant judges named in his complaint.
Accordingly, for these reasons,

3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
that this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a
claim on which the Court may grant relief, and under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) as seeking
monetary relief against defendants who are immune from such relief.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: February 29, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon William
Vonrusten, 14427 Peck Drive, Warren, Michigan 48088 on March 1, 2012, by ordinary
mail.
s/Ruth A. Gunther
Case Manager

4