United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a request to
proceed in forma pauperis. This action is referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the
reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that this
action be dismissed without leave to amend.
Screening of Plaintiff's Complaint Under 28 U.S.C.
Legal Standards for Screening Prisoner Complaints
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).
document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,
' and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal quotation
marks omitted)). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)
(“Pleadings shall be so construed as to do
justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled
to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies
cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson,
809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated
when defendant Ervine, a superior court judge, admitted
inadmissible evidence. ECF No. 1 at 3-13. Plaintiff seeks the
recusal or disqualification of defendant from any matters in
which plaintiff appears, an order “vacat[ing] the void
judgment, ” and directing his immediate release from
prison. Id. at 3, 13.
Defendant Is Immune
any action brought against a judicial officer [under Section
1983] for an act or omission taken in such officer's
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory
relief was unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendant's putative ruling on the admissibility of
evidence falls squarely within the scope of activity
performed in his judicial capacity, and there is no
indication that this action falls within Section 1983's
narrow exception to judicial immunity. Defendant Ervine is
therefore immune from liability and the claims against him
should be dismissed.
Failure to State Section 1983 Claim
prisoners may not attack the fact or length of their
confinement in a Section 1983 action and “habeas corpus
is the appropriate remedy” for such claims. Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Nettles v.
Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that
habeas corpus is “available only for state prisoner
claims that lie at the core of habeas (and is the exclusive
remedy for such claims), while Section 1983 is the exclusive
remedy for state prisoner claims that do not lie at the core
of habeas”). Here, plaintiff's claims lie directly
within the core of habeas corpus because he is challenging
the validity of his continued confinement ...