Meeks v. Haggerty et al

Filing 4

ORDER TO DISMISS. Signed on 8/7/09 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (mkk)

IN THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON JOHN MORGAN MEEKS, Plaintiff, CV. 0 9 - 7 4 7 - S T ORDER TO D I S M I S S

v.
A. HAGGERTY, HOGAN, GRABBER, AKIN, COURT a n d LAW CLERKS, COFFIN, CLERKS,

Defendants. BROWN, D i s t r i c t J u d g e . Plaintiff, an inmate at FCI-Sheridan, brings this civil rights a c t i o n pursuant t o 42 U.S.C.
§

1983.

In a separate order,

the

court has granted p l a i n t i f f leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons s e t forth below, p l a i n t i f f ' s Complaint i s dismissed f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a claim upon which r e l i e f may be granted.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2).
BACKGROUND

In this prisoner civil rights action, plaintiff alleges that various federal Judges and court s t a f f are biased against him.

1 - ORDER TO D I S M I S S

Plaintiff a p p e a r s t o a s k t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d h i m $ 1 7 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n d appoint a guardian ad l i tem t o p r o t e c t him "from IRS + governmental thieves." Complaint (docket #1), p. 3.
STANDARDS

Notwi thstanding thereof, the court

the payment shall

of a

any

filing at

fee any

or portion time if it

dismiss

case

determines that:
(B)

the action (i) is frivolous or malicious;

( i i ) f a i l s t o s t a t e a claim on which r e l i e f may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who i s i m m u n e f r o m s u c h r e l i e f . 28 U.S.C.
§§

1915(e) (2).

"In federal court, dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper 'only i f i t i s clear that no r e l i e f could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations. '"

Cervantes v. C i t y o f San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274

(9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984)); Tanner v. Heise, 879 F.2d 572, 576 (9th Cir. 1989).

In

making this determination, t h i s court accepts a l l allegations of material fact as true and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Tanner, 879 F.2d a t 576.

2 - ORDER TO D I S M I S S

In c i v i l r i g h t s c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a p l a i n t i f f p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , this court construes the pleadings liberally and affords the

p l a i n t i f f the benefit of any doubt. 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992),

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

o v e r r u l e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s b y WMX

Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1998); KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.
1988) . Before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, this court supplies the plaintiff with a

statement of the complaint's deficiencies.

McGuckin, 974 F.2d a t

1055; Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d a t 623-24; Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d
1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave

t o amend h i s or her complaint unless i t i s absolutely c l e a r t h a t the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.

Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d a t 623; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 113031 (9th Cir. 2000).
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's claims against Judges Haggerty, Graber,

Hogan,

Coffin,

and Aiken a l l f a i l to state a claim because judges are

a b s o l u t e l y immune from a s u i t f o r damages a r i s i n g out of j u d i c i a l acts performed in their judicial capacity.

M i r e l e s s v . Waco, 502

u.s.

9, 11 (1991).

Similarly, plaintiff's claims against the court

clerks and law clerks are barred by quasi-judicial immunity.

In re

3 - ORDER TO D I S M I S S

Castillo, 2 9 7 F . 3 d 9 4 0 , 9 5 2 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) .
finds the contents of plaintiff's

Moreover, the court to be frivolous.

Complaint

Accordingly, the Complaint i s summarily dismissed pursuant t o 28 U.S.C.
§

1915(e) (2).
CONCLUSION

Based

on

the

foregoing,

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

plaintiff's

C o m p l a i n t ( # 1 ) i s DISMISSED b e c a u s e i t b o t h f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m and i s frivolous. As t h e s e d e f i c i e n c i e s c a n n o t b e c u r e d t h r o u g h

amendment, the dismissal i s with prejudice. Because the court i s able to summarily resolve this case based on the contents of the Complaint, plaintiff's request for the

a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l i n t h e b o d y o f h i s C o m p l a i n t i s DENIED. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

1k

day of August, 2009.

United States District Judge

4 - ORDER TO D I S M I S S