Battles el v. Valente et al

Filing 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH)

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 TAMARA ALISHA BATTLES EL, Case No. C17-1145 RSM 11 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 13 14 15 16 v. LAURA VALENTE, Administrative Law Judge, Defendant. This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Court’s Order to Show Cause, 17 18 Dkt. #11. Pro Se Plaintiff Tamara Alisha Battles el has been granted leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #9. The Complaint was posted on the docket on August 14, 2017. 20 Dkt. #10. Summons has not yet been issued. 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff brings this action against “Laura Valente, Administrative Law Judge, Social Security Administrative Offices of Disability Adjudication and Review.” Id. Plaintiff accuses Judge Valente of “erroring in law and fact while abusing discretion when rendering decision for 25 Claimants [sic] Disability and Supplemental Insurance application, thus violating any oaths of 26 office.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges this Court has jurisdiction “based on the diversity of 27 citizenship of the parties and the cause of action,” and that Judge Valente “waives all implied 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1   1 sovereign immunity as a [sic] agent for the state and federal agencies because she committed a 2 crimes [sic] of neglect and discrimination causing Claimant irreparable harm.” Id. Plaintiff 3 indicates that the source of her claim is “an unlawful unfavorable decision” rendered by Judge 4 Valente on January 27, 2016. Id. Plaintiff accuses Judge Valente of denying her due process 5 6 7 and discriminating against her “by failing to consider substantial objective medical evidence on file…” Id. at 2. Plaintiff demands a “Writ of Prohibito for injunction immediately restraining 8 and removing any and ALL agency actor state and federal from any account held by 9 [Plaintiff],” as well as a writ of mandamus and restitution in the amount of “$5,000,000.00 Five 10 11 12 Million Dollars to relieve some of the irreparable harm caused by willful neglect and Discrimination.” Id. 13 The Court notes that this is not a civil action challenging Judge Valente’s decision in 14 accordance with the procedure set forth in a letter entitled “Notice of Appeals Council Action” 15 sent to Plaintiff by the Social Security Administration. See Dkt. #2-2 at 2 (“[t]he Complaint 16 should name the Commissioner of Social Security as the defendant…”); see also Dkt. #7 (email 17 18 from Plaintiff to Court stating “[t]his is a tort claim against Laura Valente in her personal and 19 professional capacity…”). However, Plaintiff has informed the Court that she does have a 20 separate action reviewing the agency decision at issue in this case, currently pending in the 21 Ninth Circuit. Dkt. #12 at 1. 22 23 24 On August 17, 2017, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause in this matter. Dkt. #11. The Court indicated that the Complaint fails to identify what laws or statues Plaintiff believes 25 give rise to a claim against Judge Valente personally, that Judge Valente is almost certainly 26 immune, and that Plaintiff’s claims appear frivolous. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to 27 respond with a short and plain statement telling the Court (1) the laws upon which her claims 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2   1 2 are based, (2) how Defendant is not immune from suit, and (3) why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous. Id. 3 On September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response. Dkt. #12. Plaintiff’s Response is 4 divided into sections responding to each of the three topics above. For “laws upon which her 5 6 7 claims are based,” Plaintiff includes, inter alia, the following statutes in list form: 18 U.S.C. §241–242; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; 18 U.S.C. §2255; 18 U.S.C. § 287; 18 U.S.C. § 8 152; 18 U.S.C. §1593; 18 U.S.C. §3571; 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 42 U.S.C. § 3795a. Id. at 2. 9 Plaintiff appears to argue that Defendant withheld her personal property thus causing 10 11 12 irreparable harm under § 1983. Id. For “how Defendant is not immune from suit,” Plaintiff cites to several irrelevant areas of law, including accusing Defendant of engaging in an 13 “economic war” in violation of international law, violating a fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff 14 under Defendant’s oath of office, violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by 15 depriving her of security from government invasion, and engaging in civil conspiracy. Id. at 3. 16 Plaintiff accuses Defendant of engaging in “willful” conduct based on a history of rendering 17 18 “unfavorable decisions errored in law.” Plaintiff’s citation to law and quotes from cases lack 19 analysis or a clear connection to the facts of this case. Where Plaintiff does discuss this case, 20 she generally accuses Defendant of engaging in error by means of her judicial actions, e.g. 21 Plaintiff accuses Defendant of conducting an adversarial proceeding in violation of 20 CFR 22 23 24 405.1(c). Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s response to “why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous” is to provide generally out-of-context quotes from cases, e.g. “[s]ilence can only be equated 25 with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where and [sic] inquiry left 26 unanswered would be intentionally misleading… We cannot condone this shocking behavior… 27 This sort of deception will not be tolerated an [sic] if this routine is [sic] should be corrected 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3   1 immediately.” Id. at 6 (citing U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299–300). Tweel was a criminal 2 case where the Defendant was charged with tax evasion and the Court criticized the deceptive 3 behavior of the IRS agents involved. See 550 F.2d at 299–300. 4 5 6 7 The Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court has reviewed the record and Plaintiff’s 8 Response and finds that this suit is based on Judge Valente’s judicial actions, for which she is 9 immune. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme 10 11 12 Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Administrative law judges and agency prosecuting attorneys are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity so long as they perform functions similar to 13 judges and prosecutors in a setting like that of a court.”). Plaintiff’s allegation that Judge 14 Valente has waived immunity by committing “crimes” of neglect and discrimination is 15 unsupported by law or fact. Plaintiff’s request for $5 million is frivolous. Given all of this, 16 dismissal is therefore warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 17 18 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 19 1) Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. 20 2) This matter is CLOSED. 21 22 23 DATED this 13th day of September 2017. A 24 25 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 4

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?