Trevino et al v. Quigley et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing Plaintiffs to show cause why Judicial Defendants should not be dismissed from this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Show Cause Response due by 5/2/2018. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: plaintiffs via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

FRANCIS ANTHONY TREVINO,
et al.,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
13

v.

CASE NO. C18-0487JLR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
Before the court is pro se Plaintiffs Francis Anthony Trevino and Mark Newton
16
Kelly’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) complaint against the Washington Department of
17
Social and Health Services (“DSHS”); Kevin W. Quigley, Secretary of DSHS; Spokane
18
County Superior Court Judge Gregory D. Sypolt; Spokane County Superior Court Judge
19
James M. Murphy; Washington State Supreme Court Clerk Erin L. Lennon; Washington
20
State Supreme Court Clerk Susan L. Carlson; and Dorothy Sawyer, CEO of Eastern State
21
Hospital (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 1-3.) Plaintiffs allege
22

ORDER - 1

1

claims for violation of the First Amendment, federal antitrust law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28

2

U.S.C. § 1343, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 28 U.S.C. § 2202. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs also

3

characterize their suit as a qui tam action. (See id.) The court has reviewed the

4

complaint and finds that Plaintiffs have failed to provide an adequate basis for subject

5

matter jurisdiction over Judge Sypolt, Judge Murphy, Ms. Lennon, and Ms. Carlson

6

(collectively, “Judicial Defendants”). The court therefore orders Plaintiffs to file no later

7

than May 2, 2018, a submission that addresses the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over

8

Judicial Defendants.
Plaintiffs assert that the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based on a federal

9
10

question. (Id. at 3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (stating that a federal court’s subject

11

matter jurisdiction extends to “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

12

treaties of the United States”). The party invoking jurisdiction must allege facts that

13

establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

14

555, 560-61 (1992). A federal court has a duty to analyze its subject matter jurisdiction

15

sua sponte, see Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012), and if it determines that it

16

lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time, the court must dismiss the action, see Fed.

17

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987).

18

Here, the allegations in the complaint suggest that Judicial Defendants are entitled to

19

some form of judicial immunity, and therefore the court has no subject matter jurisdiction

20

as to those defendants. (See Compl. at 6-30 (alleging facts suggesting that Judicial

21

Defendants took actions within the scope of their judicial functions)); Gordon v. Wooten,

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

No. 1:12-cv-00012-AWI-SKO, 2012 WL 967852, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012)

2

(stating that judicial immunity deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction).

3

Judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts performed in their official

4

capacities and are liable only for acts taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or acts

5

that are not judicial in nature. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.

6

1986) (en banc). The immunity applies no matter how “erroneous the [judge’s] act may

7

have been, and however injurious in its consequences [the act] may have proved to the

8

plaintiff.” Id. at 1074 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Cleavinger v. Saxner,

9

474 U.S. 193 (1985). As to Judge Sypolt and Judge Murphy, Plaintiffs allege no facts

10

suggesting that the judges acted without jurisdiction or outside of their judicial function.

11

(See Compl. at 22, 24, 27.)

12

In addition, judicial clerks enjoy quasi-judicial immunity when acting in their

13

official capacities. See In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that

14

“court clerks and other non-judicial officers” enjoy quasi-judicial immunity when they

15

perform tasks that are “an integral part of the judicial process” or “for purely

16

administrative acts . . . [that] are actually a part of the judicial function”); Sams v. Cty. of

17

Riverside, No. EDCV 17-1848 SVW (SS), 2018 WL 147433, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26,

18

2018). Although judicial clerks may be liable for certain actions, Plaintiffs make no

19

allegations specifically against Ms. Carlson and Ms. Lennon. (See Compl. at 6-30.)

20
21

Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE no later than May 2,
2018, why Judicial Defendants should not be dismissed from this case for lack of subject

22

ORDER - 3

1

matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs fail to respond or provide a basis for exercising subject

2

matter jurisdiction over Judicial Defendants, the court will dismiss those defendants.

3

Dated this 17th day of April, 2018.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4