Stonecipher v. Jessen

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson. IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. (arp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANTHONY JAMES STONECIPHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:23-cv-00619-WJ-GJF

ELLEN R. JESSEN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendant, a state court judge, violated
Plaintiff’s civil rights during state court proceedings. See Plaintiff’s Verified First Amended
Complaint to Recover Damages due to Deprivation of Civil Rights, Doc. 4, filed August 14, 2014
(“Amended Complaint”). Plaintiff is suing Defendant in her individual and official capacities and
seeks an order directing Defendant to recuse from any current or future cases involving Plaintiff.
See Amended Complaint at 1, 37. Defendant filed two motions to dismiss, one based on judicial
immunity and the other on subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on absolute judicial immunity as
to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in her individual capacity. See Order, Doc. 30, filed
July 19, 2024. The Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on absolute judicial
immunity as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in her official capacity because judicial
immunity applies only to personal capacity claims. See Order at 3.
The Court denied Defendant’s Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
based on Eleventh immunity without prejudice because a plaintiff may seek injunctive relief
against a state court judge under limited circumstances. See Order at 4. Neither Defendant nor

Plaintiff addressed the limited circumstances under which a plaintiff may seek injunctive relief
against a state court judge. The Court explained that:
“[U]nder Ex parte Young, a plaintiff may bring suit against individual state officers
acting in their official capacities if the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of
federal law and the plaintiff seeks prospective relief.” Levy v. Kan. Dep't of Soc.
& Rehab. Servs., 789 F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff seeks prospective
injunctive relief pursuant to Ex parte Young. However, Defendant is a state court
judge.
Section 1983 expressly disallows injunctive relief against a judicial
officer “for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial
capacity ... unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory
relief was unavailable.” See Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292
(10th Cir. 2011) (“Although we have previously said that a plaintiff
may obtain an injunction against a state judge under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, those statements were abrogated by the Federal Courts
Improvement Act of 1996, which provides that injunctive relief
against a judicial officer shall not be granted unless a declaratory
decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”)
(citations and quotation marks omitted)…
Catanach v. Thomson, 718 Fed.Appx. 595, 599-600 (10th Cir. 2017) (emphasis
added) (footnotes omitted).
Order at 5. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case
as barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Order at 8. Plaintiff did not show cause why the Court should
not dismiss this case by the August 9, 2024, deadline.
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

/s/
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2