Rousseau et al v. Burton et al

Filing 18

ORDER: State Judge Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 5 is Granted, and plaintiffs' claims are Dismissed in their entirety. All pending motions are Denied as Moot. Signed on July 8, 2009 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (cp)

I N THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT
FOR THE D I S T R I C T O F OREGON

CAROLYN ROUSSEAU; CORY

Civ. No.

09-6104-AA

PALMERTON,
O P I N I O N AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,

CLAUDIA M. BURTON; DANIEL L. HARRIS; NANCY DOTY; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,

Defendants.
AIKEN, Chief Judge:

Plaintiffs filed

suit alleging violations

of plaintiff

Rousseau's due process rights, arising from underlying state court proceedings regarding Rousseau's competency. Plaintiffs seek

damages and reversal of two orders entered in those proceedings.
See - Complaint,
III(2).

Plaintiffs name as defendants state court

judges Burton and Harris, who apparently presided over the underlying proceedings, and Doty, the appointed guardian and conservator of Rousseau, who
-

in that capacity - revoked powers of

attorney that Rousseau delegated to plaintiff Palmerton. State judge defendants Burton and Harris move for dismissal of 1

-

O P I N I O N AND ORDER

plaintiffs' claims, arguing that they are barred by judicial immunity. Defendants are correct. Judicial officers are immune

from suit for actions or rulings performed in their judicial capacities. S t u m ~ Swarkrnan, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). Further, v. plaintiffs fail to allege a cognizable legal theory to pursue a due process claim against Doty, a private individual. Moreover, to the extent plaintiffs challenge judicial rulings entered in pending or final state court proceedings, plaintiffs cannot raise such challenges in this court. Federal courts

generally may not intervene in pending state court proceedings, Kleenwell Biohazard Waste
&

General Ecolouv Consultants, Inc. v.

Nelson, 48 F.3d 391, 393 (9th Cir. 1995), and review of a final state court decision by a federal district court is prohibited. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Ameals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). For these reasons,

amendment of plaintiffs' complaint would be futile.
CONCLUSION

State Judge Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 5) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Dated this IT I S SO ORDERED. All

8 day of July, 2009.
Ann Aiken Chief United States District Judge

La&,/

'. 7

2

- OPINION AND ORDER