Regis v. Devi et al

Filing 16

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant U.S. Bankruptcy Court's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 9 is GRANTED and Defendant United States Bankruptcy Court is DISMISSED as a Defendant to this action. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 1/24/13. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

RICARDO REGIS,
Plaintiff,

v.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Civil File No. 12-1673 (MJD/JJK)

ROSELENE DEVI; STATE OF
MINNESOTA, RAMSEY DISTRICT
COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT; and U.S. BANKRUPTCY
COURT, DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA,
Defendants.
Ricardo Regis, pro se.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Defendant U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. [Docket No. 9]
Plaintiff Ricardo Regis has not filed an opposition to the motion. For the reasons
that follow, oral argument on this motion in CANCELLED and the motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.

1

Plaintiff Ricardo Regis has filed a lawsuit against, among other
Defendants, “U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of Minnesota.” Regis alleges that
the Bankruptcy Court “refuse[d] to use my evidence to the judgment and
refuse[d] to hear my witness. The Bankruptcy Judge sa[id] Defendant Ricardo
Regis intentionally deprived plaintiff [of] personal property. This is a[n]
intentional[] wrong doing, fraud, def[a]mation of c[h]aracter[], violation of
human right.” (Complaint at 4.) He requests “compensation of $199,000.00
because [he] lost [his] house base[d] on that judgment.” (Id. at 6.) Regis attaches
a Bankruptcy Court Judgment and an Order for Judgment of
Nondischargeability in Regis’ bankruptcy case. Regis’ claims against the
Bankruptcy Court are based on the Bankruptcy Court’s judicial decisions made
in Regis’ bankruptcy case.
Absolute immunity bars Regis’ claim. First, the Bankruptcy Court, itself, is
not a proper defendant because it is protected by sovereign immunity. Edlund v.
Montgomery, 355 F. Supp. 2d 987, 991 (D. Minn. 2005). Second, to the extent
Regis is attempting to assert a claim against a Bankruptcy Court Judge, that claim
is based on the Judge’s judicial acts in Regis’ bankruptcy proceeding, a
proceeding over which the Bankruptcy Court Judge had subject matter

2

jurisdiction. Such claims are barred by absolute judicial immunity. Id. at 990; see
also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978) (“[J]udges of courts of
superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts,
even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have
been done maliciously or corruptly.”) (citation and footnote omitted). Judicial
immunity extends to Bankruptcy Judges making decisions in bankruptcy cases.
See Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388-89
(9th Cir. 1987). Thus, the Court must dismiss the claims against the Bankruptcy
Court.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendant U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction [Docket No. 9] is GRANTED and
Defendant United States Bankruptcy Court is DISMISSED as a
Defendant to this action.

Dated: January 24, 2013

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court

3