Opinion
21-cv-05348-LB
08-09-2021
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM H. ALSUP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Re: ECF No. 1
LAUREL BEELER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
In this lawsuit, the plaintiff, who represents herself and is proceeding in forma pauperis, sued the court and the district judge who previously presided over her case against her former employer.(The case since has been reassigned to a different judge.) See Drevaleva v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affs., No. 3:18-cv-03748-JCS. The district judge dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.The court previously granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and now screens the complaint for minimum legal viability under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The lawsuit is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Because not all parties have appeared or consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the case must be reassigned. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). The court directs the Clerk of Court to reassign the case and recommends that the newly assigned judge dismiss the case.
Compl. - ECF No. 1 at 17-23 (¶¶ 58-67). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
Drevaleva v. U.S. Dep't. of Veterans Affairs, No. 18-cv-03748-JCS, Order - ECF No. 69 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018)
Order - ECF No. 6.
STATEMENT
The plaintiff has filed other lawsuits in this district challenging judicial acts, and courts have dismissed the cases. See, e.g., Drevaleva v. Beeler, No. 20-cv-00642-JD (KAW), Order - ECF No. 15 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020) (judicial immunity); Drevaleva v. Justices of the Cal. Ct. of Appeal, No. 20-cv-7017-EMC, 21-cv-01664-EMC, & 21-cv-2222-EMC, Order - ECF No. 36 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2021) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine; warned plaintiff that she could be declared a vexatious litigant); Drevaleva v. Humes et al, No. 21-cv-02543-EMC, Order - ECF No. 7 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2021) (same).
ANALYSIS
1. Sua Sponte Screening - 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshals to serve the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. “The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). The in forma pauperis statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include a “short and plain statement” showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations, ” but the plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief, ” which “requires more than labels and conclusions”; a mere “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).
In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court ordinarily is limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and reasonable inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996).
Federal courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). A pro se plaintiff need only provide defendants with fair notice of his claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1043. He need not plead specific legal theories so long as sufficient factual averments show that he may be entitled to some relief. Id. at 1041.
When dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (cleaned up).
2. Judicial Immunity
The plaintiff's claims are barred by judicial immunity.
A federal judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in his judicial capacity and, unlike the judicial immunity available to state judges sued under § 1983, a federal judge's immunity is not limited to immunity from damages, but extends to actions for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying judicial-immunity doctrine to Bivens action). This is because if a federal judge violates a litigant's constitutional rights in a proceeding pending in federal court, Congress has provided carefully structured procedures for taking appeals and for petitioning for extraordinary writs in Title 28 of the United States Code. Id. Absolute immunity “is not reserved solely for judges, but extends to nonjudicial officers for all claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions.” Burton v. Infinity Cap. Mgmt., 862 F.3d 740, 747 (9th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Here, the plaintiff challenges a trial judge's orders in her case. Judicial immunity applies. The court recommends dismissal with prejudice because the plaintiff cannot cure this deficiency.
CONCLUSION
The court recommends dismissal of the complaint and directs the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge. Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); N.D. Cal. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.