Hoeft, Richard v. Conley

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing plaintiff's 1 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) for seeking damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/23/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RICHARD HOEFT,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

12-cv-458-bbc

JUDGE CONLEY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Richard Hoeft has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that the defendant, United States District Judge William Conley, has violated his civil rights.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the complaint is now
before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). According to this statute, the
court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In screening any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must construe the claims
generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). In this case, however, even a
generous reading does not allow me to find that the proposed complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

1

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Plaintiff is a resident of Park Falls, Wisconsin. On May 31, 2011, plaintiff filed the
following three lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin: 1) Hoeft v. Chris Hoffman and Matt Schultz, Civil No. 11-cv-388-wmc; 2)
Hoeft v. Bob Hansen and Mrs. Bob Hansen, Civil No. 11-cv-389-wmc; and 3) Hoeft v. Matt
Scherrel, Dave Shultz, John Doe and Jane Doe, Civil No. 11-cv-390-wmc. Each of the cases
was assigned to the defendant.
In July 2011, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in all three of
the cases. To date, however, the cases have not been screened and no other action has been
taken.
Plaintiff now has filed the pending complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
defendant’s inaction has denied plaintiff access to the courts and violates his right to due
process. Plaintiff requests $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for the
violation of his civil rights. Plaintiff also asks that another judge be assigned to his cases.

OPINION
Plaintiff is proceeding under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), which requires the court to review his pleadings and dismiss a complaint “at any
time” if the reviewing court determines that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious; 2) fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 3) seeks money damages from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).

2

I understand plaintiff to be bringing claims against the defendant for failing to take
action on several of his complaints. Assuming that these allegations are true, the complaint
must be dismissed because the defendant is immune from suit.
Few doctrines are more solidly established at common law than the absolute
immunity of judges from liability for their judicial acts. Ohse v. Hughes, 816 F.2d 1144,
1154 (7th Cir. 1987) (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)). The doctrine of
judicial immunity establishes the absolute immunity of judges from liability for their judicial
acts, even when they act maliciously or corruptly. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991). This
immunity is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the
benefit of the public, which has an interest in a judiciary free to exercise its function without
fear of harassment by unsatisfied litigants. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967); see
also Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988) (observing that judicial immunity
discourages inappropriate collateral attacks and protects judicial independence by insulating
judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants) (citing Bradley v. Fisher,
13 Wall. 335, 348 80 U.S. 335 (1872)).
Court records show that the civil actions filed by plaintiff in Civil Nos. 11-cv-388wmc, 11-cv-389-wmc, and 11-cv-390-wmc remain pending and are listed as “under
advisement.” Another complaint filed by plaintiff on May 31, 2011 was dismissed with
prejudice after plaintiff failed to comply with court orders. Hoeft v. Dave Schultz, John Doe
and Jane Doe, Civil No. 11-cv-387-wmc (W.D. Wis. Aug. 16, 2012). Plaintiff did not file
an appeal.

3

Plaintiff does not demonstrate that his cases have been ignored and his allegations of
delay fall well short of the allegations necessary to deprive the defendant of absolute
immunity. Mireles, 502 U.S. 11-12 (noting that allegations of bad faith or malice are
insufficient to defeat absolute judicial immunity, which may be overcome only by showing
that the complained of actions were nonjudicial in nature or were taken in the complete
absence of all jurisdiction). To the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary damages from a
defendant who is immune from such relief, his complaint must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b). To the extent that he is asking for assignment of his cases to another judge,
he has asked for relief that is not available in this court.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Richard Hoeft’s complaint is DISMISSED under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) for seeking damages from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
Entered this 23d day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4