Opinion
Case No. CIV-18-953-HE
10-02-2018
COLIN LEE BASHANT, Plaintiff, v. OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BILL GRAVES FOR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming Oklahoma County District Court Judge Bill Graves as the sole Defendant. [Doc. No. 1]. Chief United States District Judge Joe Heaton has referred the matter for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint on screening.
I. Plaintiff's Claim
Plaintiff's single claim is straightforward. He alleges that Judge Graves violated the Oklahoma and federal constitutions in denying Plaintiff an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether he was denied "the right to withdraw[] his plea in case CF-1997-6575." Compl. at 3-4 & Attach. A at 1-5. As remedy, Plaintiff asks this Court to "compel Honorable Judge Graves to provide the Plaintiff with an evidentiary hearing pursuant to [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA)] Rule 2.1(E)(1) to determine if he was denied his due process right to appeal." Id. at 5.
II. Screening
Because Plaintiff has sued a government official, the Court has a duty to screen the Complaint and dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b) (1)-(2).
III. Analysis
According to Plaintiff, he filed a writ of mandamus in State court requesting that Judge Graves provide him an evidentiary hearing on his underlying post-conviction claims. See Compl., Attach. A at 1. Judge Graves denied relief, and Plaintiff appealed to the OCCA. Id. at 2. That court affirmed, and Plaintiff then moved for "clarification" in State court. Id. Judge Graves again denied relief. Id. Now Plaintiff asks this Court to compel Judge Graves to reverse his decision and grant Plaintiff an evidentiary hearing. However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiff's action.
Plaintiff does not seek monetary relief from Judge Graves. If he did, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity would bar the claim. That is, a state judge is absolutely immune from monetary relief under § 1983 except when the judge acts "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-357 (1978); see also Quintana v. Adair, 673 F. App'x 815, 818-19 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding "Oklahoma state court judges" are entitled to "absolute immunity" unless the judicial act "is taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction"). To determine whether a judge performed a "judicial" act or acted "in the clear absence of jurisdiction," the Tenth Circuit directs courts to look to "the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." Stump, 435 U.S. at 362. Clearly, Judge Graves's act of ruling in Plaintiff's post-conviction proceedings was judicial in nature, and Plaintiff gives only conclusory suggestion that it was in the clear absence of jurisdiction. --------
"Rooker-Feldman is a jurisdictional prohibition on lower federal courts exercising appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments." Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682 F.3d 1278, 1281 (10th Cir. 2012). In other words, "when Congress vested the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, it implied that the lower federal courts lacked authority to review state-court judicial proceedings." Id. "Consequently, a complaint filed in a federal district court that seeks review and reversal of a state-court judgment is properly dismissed under Rooker- Feldman." Erlandson v. Northglenn Mun. Court, 528 F.3d 785, 789 (10th Cir. 2008). So, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claim, without prejudice, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Alexander v. Lucas, 259 F. App'x 145, 148 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff's request that the federal district court order a State-court judge to grant relief in post-conviction proceedings); see also Vanderbol III v. Tuller, No. CIV-17-128-HE, 2017 WL 2417025, at *3 n.6 (W.D. Okla. June 2, 2017) (unpublished district court order) ("The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits district courts from exercising appellate-like jurisdiction over the orders of a state court."), appeal dismissed, 2017 WL 8727423 (10th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, [Doc. No. 1], without prejudice. Adoption of this Recommendation will moot Plaintiff's pending application to proceed in forma pauperis, [Doc. No. 3].
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Plaintiff is advised of his right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court by October 23, 2018. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991).
STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the Chief District Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2018.
/s/_________
BERNARD M. JONES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE