Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. BRICK

United States District Court, N.D. California


November 7, 2005.

GLENDA F. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
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 MOOT
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. ยง 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.

20051107

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.