Byrd v. Harper

Filing 13

ORDER: The Court dismisses the action and DENIES as moot Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and motion for objection. Dkt. ## 10 and 12 . Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(MW)(cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

HOUSTON BYRD,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00479 RAJ

v.

ORDER

HON. JUDGE A. HARPER, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
I.

15
16

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.

17

Dkt. # 12. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot and the Court

18

dismisses the action without prejudice.
II. DISCUSSION

19
20

A district court may sua sponte dismiss a pro se complaint filed in forma pauperis

21

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) where the complaint is “frivolous” in that it lacks any arguable

22

basis in law or fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Jackson v. Arizona, 885

23

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

24

From what the Court can ascertain, Plaintiff alleges that a King County judge

25

committed perjury and other acts of judicial misconduct in a state court case involving

26

Plaintiff. The Complaint, however, fails to put forth any facts supporting Plaintiff’s

27

allegations and instead quotes numerous statutes and cases concerning fraud on the court.

28

ORDER – 1

1

Dkt. # 5 at 9-10.

2

Furthermore, it is settled that “[j]udges are immune from suit arising out of their

3

judicial acts, without regard to the motives with which their judicial acts are performed,

4

and notwithstanding such acts may have been performed in excess of jurisdiction, provided

5

there was not a clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Sires v. Cole, 320

6

F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978)

7

(explaining that a judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was

8

in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority).

9

While it appears that any amendment to the Complaint will fall within the purview

10

of judicial immunity, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend to allege

11

actions that fall outside of the immunity doctrine. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369

12

F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the action without

13

prejudice and DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and motion for

14

objection. Dkt. ## 10, 12. Any amendment must be filed within 14 days of this Order.

15

III. CONCLUSION

16
17

For the reasons stated above, the Court dismisses the action and DENIES as moot
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and motion for objection. Dkt. ## 10 and 12.

18
19

DATED this 18th day of June, 2019.

A

20
21

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2