From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Roberts

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 20, 2006
Case No. 06-10846 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 06-10846.

March 20, 2006


ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL


I. Introduction

Before the Court is Plaintiff Richmond Brown Taylor's civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The Court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint. For the reasons that follow, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

II. Standard of Review

Plaintiff's complaint names three federal district judges in the Eastern District of Michigan as defendants. District courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915(e)(2)(A), a district court must on its own dismiss a complaint filed by a person who is not represented by an attorney and who does not pay the filing fee before service on the defendant if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious, that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who are immune from such relief.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff claims that defendants erroneously dismissed several civil rights complaints that he filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from the dismissal of his civil rights complaints.

Section 1983 grants state and local judges absolute immunity for their judicial acts. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity serves to protect federal judges from injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. Federal judges are also immune from Bivens suits for equitable relief. Thus, defendants are immune from suit.

Plaintiff is also not entitled to injunctive relief against the defendants because he has failed to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law. Plaintiff can appeal the dismissals of his civil rights complaints to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and therefore has a remedy.

Finally, plaintiff's complaint is also subject to dismissal because plaintiff has only made conclusory allegations that defendants improperly dismissed his prior civil rights actions.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A.

Additionally, an appeal from this order would be frivolous and therefore cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Roberts

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 20, 2006
Case No. 06-10846 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2006)
Case details for

Taylor v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:RICHMOND BROWN TAYLOR, Sr., Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 20, 2006

Citations

Case No. 06-10846 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2006)

Citing Cases

Walls v. Cleland

See Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994) (court administrator executing court order entitled to…

Vardon v. Ludington

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 (1991). Federal judges are immune from suits under Bivens v. Six Unknown…