Moore v. Foster

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against Defendant are dismissed. Plaintiff shall have until April 27, 2009, to amend his Complaint - Pro Se 1 and adequately state a factual basis for his injunctive relief claims; The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline for 4/27/2009: check for amended complaint and dismiss if none filed. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA M A U R IC E ALLISON MOORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JA M E S L. FOSTER, County Court ) Ju d g e , ) ) Defendant. ) 4 :0 9 C V 3 0 2 4

M EM ORANDUM AND ORDER

P la in tif f filed his Complaint in this matter on February 5, 2009. (Filing N o . 1.) Plaintiff has previously been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (F ilin g No. 5.) The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to d eterm in e whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). I. S U M M A R Y OF COMPLAINT

P laintiff filed his Complaint on February 5, 2009, against Lancaster County C o u rt Judge James L. Foster. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Condensed and s u m m arized , Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "racially conspired" against him. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff asks the court to enter an injunction ordering D e f e n d a n t to "act with a complete professional judicial role." (Id. at CM/ECF p . 5.) Plaintiff also seeks monetary compensation in the amount of $20,000.00. (Id .) II. A P P L IC A B L E LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

T h e court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints seeking relief ag ainst a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §

1 9 1 5 (e ). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may b e granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from su ch relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Therefore, where a pro se plaintiff does not set forth enough factual

allegations to "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed" for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (overruling Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1967), and setting a
n ew standard for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). R e ga rd le ss of whether a plaintiff is represented or is appearing pro se, the p laintiff 's complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See M a rtin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). However, a pro se p laintiff 's allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dep't o f Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

III.

D IS C U S S IO N OF CLAIMS A. A b so lu te Judicial Immunity

Ju d ic ia l Defendants are absolutely immune from damage suits arising from a c tio n s in their judicial capacity, whether or not erroneous, as long as such action s were not taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. W a c o , 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not ju s t from damages, and "is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice, the existence of which ordinarily cannot be resolved without engaging in d is co v e ry and eventual trial." Id. Plaintiff's Complaint indicates that Defendant's actions were taken in his ju d icial capacity during judicial proceedings. As such, Defendant is absolutely im m un e from Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages. However, Plaintiff also se ek s injunctive relief. Absolute judicial immunity does not extend to suits req u estin g declaratory and prospective injunctive relief. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U .S . 522, 536-38 (1984).
2

B.

P la in t iff's Claims for Injunctive Relief

A ltho ug h judicial immunity does not bar Plaintiff's injunctive relief claims, P la in tif f must still allege facts sufficient to "nudge" those claims across the line fro m conceivable to plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S. Ct. at 1974. Here, P laintiff simply states that "in [his] understanding . . . the defendant is racially co n sp iring ." (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff's opinion, without more, is not sufficient to state a claim against Defendant. Stated another way, Plaintiff d o e s not allege facts to support his claim that Defendant "racially conspired" a ga in st him. However, on its own motion, the court will permit Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that sufficiently states a factual basis for his claims. T he court cautions Plaintiff that failure to set forth a factual basis for his claims b y April 27, 2009, will result in dismissal of his Complaint without further n o t ic e . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. P lain tiff 's claims for monetary damages against Defendant are d is m is s e d . 2. P laintiff shall have until April 27, 2009, to amend his Complaint and ad eq u ately state a factual basis for his injunctive relief claims. If Plaintiff fails to submit an adequate amendment, this matter will be dismissed without p reju d ice and without further notice. 3. T h e Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management d ead line in this case with the following text: April 27, 2009: check for amended co m p laint and dismiss if none filed. March 25, 2009. B Y THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge
3