Alexander v. Astrab
Filing
4
Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The Court further certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 6/9/2016. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DANTEZ D. ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE MICHAEL K. ASTRAB,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1: 16 CV 994
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
Pro se Plaintiff Dantez D. Alexander has filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 against Judge Michael K. Astrab of the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas. He seeks $3.4 million in damages on the basis of allegations that he called the Judge’s
Court “every week” asking for a motion “to be either granted or denied[,] and every week [the
Judge’s] clerk told [him] he printed it and put it in front of the Judge.”
Although pro se pleadings generally are construed liberally and held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007), the lenient treatment generally accorded pro se plaintiffs “has limits” and pro se
plaintiffs are “not automatically entitled to take every case to trial.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92
F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Federal District Courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C.
§1915A, to screen and dismiss before service any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking
redress from a government officer or entity that the Court determines is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010).
This action must be summarily dismissed in accordance with §1915A. It is wellestablished that “[j]udicial officers enjoy absolute immunity from liability for monetary
damages for conduct within the scope of a court’s jurisdiction.” Wright v. Kinneary, 46 Fed.
App’x 250, 252 (6th Cir. 2002). “Absolute judicial immunity is overcome only when a judge
engages in non-judicial actions or when the judge’s actions, though judicial in nature, are
taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id.
Plaintiff’s allegations clearly pertain to judicial conduct falling within the scope of a
court’s proper jurisdiction. Judge Astrab is absolutely immune from liability in this case.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: June 9, 2016
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?