Trevino et al v. Quigley et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's claims against defendants James M. Murphy, Gregory D. Sypolt, Susan L. Carlson and Erin L. Lennon. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

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.,

CASE NO. C18-0487JLR
ORDER

11
Plaintiffs,
12
13

v.
KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
On April 17, 2018, the court ordered Plaintiffs Francis Anthony Trevino and Mark
16
Newton Kelly (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to show cause why their claims against Spokane
17
County Superior Court Judge Gregory D. Sypolt; Spokane County Superior Court Judge
18
James M. Murphy; Washington State Supreme Court Clerk Erin L. Lennon; and
19
Washington State Supreme Court Clerk Susan L. Carlson (collectively, “Judicial
20
Defendants”) should not be dismissed. (See OSC (Dkt. # 3).) The court noted that “the
21
allegations in the complaint suggest that Judicial Defendants are entitled to some form of
22

ORDER - 1

1

judicial immunity, and therefore the court has no subject matter jurisdiction as to those

2

defendants.” (Id. at 2.) The court informed Plaintiffs that judges are absolutely immune

3

for acts taken in their judicial capacity and that judicial clerks enjoy quasi-judicial

4

immunity when acting in their official capacities. (Id. at 3 (citing Ashelman v. Pope, 793

5

F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc); In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 951-52 (9th Cir.

6

2002)).) The court further stated that Plaintiffs did not allege Judicial Defendants were

7

acting outside their official capacities for the acts of which Plaintiffs complain. (Id.)
In their response to the court’s order to show cause, Plaintiffs have not established

8
9

that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Judicial Defendants. Indeed, their

10

allegations regarding Ms. Lennon and Ms. Carlson relate only to those defendants’

11

official capacities as judicial clerks. (OSC Resp. (Dkt. # 5) at 8 (stating that Ms. Lennon

12

“responded with the answer—‘I will place your motion in the “unfiled-papers

13

drawer.”’”); id. (alleging that Ms. Carlson stated Mr. Kelly “cites to no authority that

14

non-adherence to a court order requiring completion of sanity commission proceedings

15

under R.C.W. 10.77.060 within a specific time[]frame implicates the jurisdiction of the

16

court or otherwise requires dismissal”). In addition, as to Judges Sypolt and Murphy,

17

Plaintiffs state only that the judges “both acted upon the usurped authority”—a

18

conclusory allegation insufficient to show the judges acted without jurisdiction or outside

19

of their judicial function. (Id. at 10 (underlining omitted)); see also Ashelman, 793 F.2d

20

at 1075. Thus, Plaintiffs fail to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

Judicial Defendants, and the court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims against those

2

defendants without prejudice.

3

Dated this 8th day of May, 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 - 3