United States District Court, N.D. California
July 6, 2004.
BOBBY LEE COTTON a.k.a. HABEEBULLAH NA'EEM RASHEED, Plaintiff,
AGENT JOHN McNUNN, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
Before the Court is the application to proceed in forma
pauperis filed by plaintiff Bobby Lee Cotton, also known as
Habeebullah Na'eem Rasheed. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), when a party seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court shall dismiss the case if the Court
determines that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or that he seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from relief.
Plaintiff seeks damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against
Agent John McNunn of the California Department of Corrections,
for filing an allegedly false parole violation report in
violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit has held, however,
that "probation officers preparing reports for the use of state
courts possess an absolute judicial immunity from damage suits
under section 1983 arising from acts performed within the scope
of their official duties." See Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157 (9th Cir. 1986)
(citing Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1970)).
As Agent McNunn possesses absolute judicial immunity, plaintiff
cannot state a claim against him.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED, and the action is DISMISSED, with
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED. JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a
trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has
rendered its verdict.
[X] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing
before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a
decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED plaintiff's request to proceed in
forma pauperis is DENIED, and the action is DISMISSED, with
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.