United States District Court, N.D. California
November 7, 2005.
GLENDA F. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
STEVEN A. BRICK, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, DISMISSING
ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AS
On October 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint against Judge
Steven A. Brick of the Superior Court of the County of Alameda.
Plaintiff alleges that Judge Brick has ruled against her in a
state court case for discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff seeks "a
jury trial, a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from
presiding over any cases before the law and motion department,"
compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Plaintiff also seeks
to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against Judge Brick,
and to have him removed from the bench.
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Court has reviewed the complaint and concludes
that it should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Judge Brick enjoys absolute judicial immunity from plaintiff's
suit for damages because plaintiff is challenging actions
undertaken in connection with Judge Brick's judicial duties. See
Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). With
respect to injunctive relief, plaintiff's complaint is barred by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as plaintiff "asserts as a legal
wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks
relief from a state court judgment based on that decision. . . ."
Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. City of San Jose,
420 F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without leave to
amend and denies the application to proceed in forma pauperis
as moot. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th
Cir. 1995) ("A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his
or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it
is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could
not be cured by amendment."). The Court DISMISSES the action and
directs the clerk to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.