Battles el v. Valente et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

TAMARA ALISHA BATTLES EL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. C17-1145RSM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
LAURA VALENTE, Administrative Law
Judge,
Defendant.
Pro Se Plaintiff Tamara Alisha Battles el has been granted leave to proceed in forma

17
18
19

pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #9. The Complaint was posted on the docket on August 14, 2017.
Dkt. #10. Summons has not yet been issued.

20

Plaintiff brings this action against “Laura Valente, Administrative Law Judge, Social

21

Security Administrative Offices of Disability Adjudication and Review.” Id. Plaintiff accuses

22
23
24

Judge Valente of “erroring in law and fact while abusing discretion when rendering decision for
Claimants [sic] Disability and Supplemental Insurance application, thus violating any oaths of

25

office.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges this Court has jurisdiction “based on the diversity of

26

citizenship of the parties and the cause of action,” and that Judge Valente “waives all implied

27

sovereign immunity as a [sic] agent for the state and federal agencies because she committed a

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

crimes [sic] of neglect and discrimination causing Claimant irreparable harm.” Id. Plaintiff

2

indicates that the source of her claim is “an unlawful unfavorable decision” rendered by Judge

3

Valente on January 27, 2016. Id. Plaintiff accuses Judge Valente of denying her due process

4

and discriminating against her “by failing to consider substantial objective medical evidence on

5
6
7

file…” Id. at 2. Plaintiff demands a “Writ of Prohibito for injunction immediately restraining
and removing any and ALL agency actor state and federal from any account held by

8

[Plaintiff],” as well as a writ of mandamus and restitution in the amount of “$5,000,000.00 Five

9

Million Dollars to relieve some of the irreparable harm caused by willful neglect and

10
11
12

Discrimination.” Id.
The Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a civil action challenging Judge Valente’s

13

decision in accordance with the procedure set forth in a letter entitled “Notice of Appeals

14

Council Action” sent to Plaintiff by the Social Security Administration. See Dkt. #2-2 at 2

15

(“[t]he Complaint should name the Commissioner of Social Security as the defendant…”); see

16

also Dkt. #7 (email from Plaintiff to Court stating “[t]his is a tort claim against Laura Valente

17
18

in her personal and professional capacity…”).

19

The Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises

20

frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

21

such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

22
23
24

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not identify what laws or statues Plaintiff believes give rise
to a claim against Judge Valente personally. More importantly, this suit is based on Judge

25

Valente’s judicial actions, for which she is almost certainly immune from suit. See Pierson v.

26

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715

27

(9th Cir. 1995) (“Administrative law judges and agency prosecuting attorneys are entitled to

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

1

quasi-judicial immunity so long as they perform functions similar to judges and prosecutors in

2

a setting like that of a court.”). Plaintiff’s allegation that Judge Valente has waived immunity

3

by committing “crimes” of neglect and discrimination is unsupported by law or fact. Plaintiff’s

4

request for $5 million appears frivolous.

5
6
7

Considering all of the above, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous, and seeks monetary relief from a

8

defendant who is immune from such relief. Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from deficiencies

9

that, if not adequately explained in response to this Order, will require dismissal. 28 U.S.C. §

10
11
12

1915(e)(2)(B).
In Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and plain statement telling the

13

Court (1) the laws upon which her claims are based, (2) how Defendant is not immune from

14

suit, and (3) why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous. This Response may not

15

exceed six (6) pages. Plaintiff is not permitted to file additional pages as attachments. The

16

Court will take no further action in this case until Plaintiff has submitted this Response.

17
18

The Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to

19

Show Cause containing the detail above no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of

20

this Order. Failure to file this Response will result in dismissal of this case.

21
22
23

DATED this 17th day of August, 2017.

A

24
25

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3