Byrd v. Harper
Filing
15
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 14 Motion/Final Request for Default Judgment, Objection to the Court's June 18, 2019 Order and Findings of Fact or Reparations (construed as a motion for reconsideration). Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail
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
Plaintiff,
11
12
Case No. 2:18-cv-00479 RAJ
v.
ORDER
HON. JUDGE A. HARPER, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
I.
15
INTRODUCTION
16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Final Request for Default Judgment,
17
Objection to the Court’s June 18, 2019 Order and Findings of Fact or Reparations. Dkt. #
18
14.
19
reconsideration. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Given the context of the motion, the Court construes this as a motion for
II. DISCUSSION
20
21
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a
22
“showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could
23
not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local
24
R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1).
25
On June 18, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte. A district
26
court may sua sponte dismiss a pro se complaint filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.
27
§ 1915(d) where the complaint is “frivolous” in that it lacks any arguable basis in law or
28
ORDER – 1
1
fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640
2
(9th Cir. 1989).
3
Plaintiff alleged that a King County judge committed perjury and other acts of
4
judicial misconduct in a state court case involving Plaintiff. The Complaint, however,
5
failed to put forth any facts supporting Plaintiff’s allegations and instead quoted numerous
6
statutes and cases concerning fraud on the court. Dkt. # 5 at 9-10.
7
Furthermore, it is settled that “[j]udges are immune from suit arising out of their
8
judicial acts, without regard to the motives with which their judicial acts are performed,
9
and notwithstanding such acts may have been performed in excess of jurisdiction, provided
10
there was not a clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Sires v. Cole, 320
11
F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978)
12
(explaining that a judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was
13
in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority).
14
The Court finds no manifest error in its prior ruling. Nor has Plaintiff submitted
15
any facts or new authority to alter the Court’s conclusion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is
16
DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
17
18
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. # 14.
19
20
DATED this 14th day of August, 2019.
A
21
22
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 2
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?