Stephens v. State of Oregon et al
Filing
13
Opinion and Order - This case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 1/18/11 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
RENEE STEPHENS,
Case No.: 3:11-cv-01013-HU
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
STATE OF OREGON, by an through its
Judicial Department; Judge DONALD R.
LETOURNEAU, in his individual capacity;
Judge RICK T. HASELTON, in his
individual capacity; Judge REX
ARMSTRONG, in his individual capacity;
Judge REBECCA DUNCAN, in her
individual capacity; Chief Justice PAUL J. DE
MUNIZ, in his individual capacity, and Judge
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, in his individual
capacity,
Defendants.
RENEE STEPHENS
7135 SW 54th Avenue
Portland, OR 97219
(503) 977-7935
Pro se
SIMON, District Judge,
On September 23,2011, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Rubel issued findings and
recommendations ("F&R") (#8) in the above captioned case and referred them to this court. (#9).
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the court may "accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations, "the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed [mdings
or recommendations to which objection is made." Id; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff filed
timely objections. (#11) ("PI.'s Obj."). Accordingly, the court has reviewed Judge Hubel's F&R
de novo and, agreeing with Judge Hubel's recommendation, orders that Plaintiff's complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
A.
Background
Plaintiff filed a complaint with the District Court on August 19, 2011, and an amended
complaint ("PI's Amended CompI.") on August 22,2011. (#2,4). In his amended complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, the State of Oregon and six current and former state court
judges, violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they ruled against him in an action he brought in Oregon
state court. PI's Amended Compi. 3-5. In particular, he alleges that Defendant Judge LeTourneau
"erroneously, with extreme bias towards the plaintiff, granted" a motion for summary judgment
against him, and that the other Defendants "erroneously" affirmed that decision. PI's Amended
Compi. 3. He seeks both damages and equitable relief. PI's Amended Compi. 5. Plaintiff also
moved for an order permitting him to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(I). (#1). Defendants have not appeared.
Judge Hubel granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), if the court approves in forma pauperis status, the court "shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines" that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
OPINION AND ORDER - Page 2
on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. To
properly state a claim, a complaint must be "plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, _ , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
The court may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint that fails to meet the requirements of28 U.S.c. §
1915(e)(2)(B) before service of process on defendants. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227
(9th Cir. 1984).
Judge Hubel recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The
court agrees. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted because
Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, common law principles of
judicial immunity, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
B.
Claims Against Defendant State of Oregon
The fIrst named Defendant is the State of Oregon. The Eleventh Amendment to the
United States Constitution, however, bars suits against states: In "the absence of consent a suit in
which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by
the Eleventh Amendment." Pennhurst State School & Hasp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100
(1984). "This bar exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable." Papasan v. Allain, 478
U.S. 265, 276 (1986); see also Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979) (section 1983 does not
abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity). The court presumes that the state
has not consented to waive immunity. College Sav. Bank v. Fl. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ.
Expense Bd, 527 U.S. 666,682 (1999). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against the state of
Oregon are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
OPINION AND ORDER - Page 3
C.
Claims Against Defendant Judges
The remaining named individual Defendants are six current and former Oregon state .
court judges. Generally, judges are immune from claims for damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S.
9,9-10 (1991). Judicial immunity "applies 'however erroneous the act may have been, and
however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff. '" Cleavinger v.
Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,20 L.Ed. 646
(1872)). It may be overcome in only two sets of circumstances: "First, a judge is not immune
from liability for nonjudicial actions, i. e., actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity.
Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete
absence of all jurisdiction." Id at 11-12 (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff argues that Defendants' decisions were made in the complete absence of
jurisdiction: "The Court in this case was acting outside of its jurisdiction when" it ruled against
him on summary judgment, instead of permitting his claims to go ajury. Pl.'s Obj. 4. This court
disagrees. A court's jurisdiction is its "power to decide a case or issue a decree[.]" BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY 927 (Bryan Gamer et al. eds., 9th ed. 1990). Under Oregon law, issuing a [mal
ruling on a motion for summary judgment is unambiguously within the power of the state court.
See Or. R. Civ. P. 47. Moreover, even if the state court ruled incorrectly, that does not remove
the court's jurisdiction: "the jurisdiction of a court to decide a case does not disappear if its
decision on the merits is wrong." Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682,
695 (1949). The individual judicial Defendants acted within their jurisdiction and are,
accordingly, immune from damages.
Plaintiff claims nonetheless that even absent damages, it "is clear that this Court has the
authority under § 1983, to grant injunctive relief against defendants." PI.' s Obj. 2. For this
OPINION AND ORDER - Page 4
proposition he cites Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984). In 1996, however, Congress passed
the Federal Courts Improvement Act. Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847. That Act amended
§ 1983 to supersede Pulliam and prohibit injunctive relief against judges. See MacPherson v.
Town o/Southampton, 664 F.Supp.2d 203, 211(E.D.N.Y. 2009) ("Congress ... effectively
reversed [Pulliam] with regard to injunctive relief with the enactment of the Federal Courts
Improvement Act of 1996."). Section 1983 now provides that "in any action brought against a
judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief
shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The six individual Defendant judges are thus immune from both
legal and equitable relief.
D.
Dismissal
Defendant the State of Oregon and the six individual judicial Defendants are immune
from suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs complaint is without legal basis and no relief may be granted.
See Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925-26 (11th Cir. 1991) ("A judge is absolutely immune
from suit in performing his judicial responsibilities. Therefore, [Plaintiff s] action against [a
judge] is completely without a legal basis, and the district court properly dismissed this case
prior to service of process." (internal citation omitted)).
"Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely
clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Schucker v.
Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). Amendment cannot cure the legal hurdles standing in the way of Plaintiffs complaint:
even accepting as true all of the facts that Plaintiff has pled, the named Defendants are immune.
OPINION AND ORDER - Page 5
Accordingly, his complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Id. at 1204 (affirming district court
order dismissing Plaintiffs complaint against judge with prejudice).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
If?
/£day of October, 2011
~~
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER - Page 6
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?