Todd v. Canby
| Decision Date | 07 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:13-cv-1018 GEB AC PS,2:13-cv-1018 GEB AC PS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | DEREK TODD, Plaintiff, v. U.S. JUDGE WILLIAM CANBY, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 22, 2013 together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(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 (9thCir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on January 23, 2013, defendants William Canby and Richard Clifton, both circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, denied plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, on grounds that the appeal was legally frivolous. Plaintiff contends that defendants could not properly have made such a determination before plaintiff had filed his opening brief. According to plaintiff, defendants stated that they would hear plaintiff's appeal if he paid the filing fee. However, plaintiff asserts that he is indigent as a result of a disability and cannot afford the filing fee. Plaintiff claims that defendants' decision violated his right to be heard and his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and also violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. As such, plaintiff purports to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 2000b & 12132, for which he seeks damages. See generally ECF No. 1.
In this case, the court need not reach the substance of plaintiff's claims because it is readily apparent that defendants are absolutely immune from liability. "Judges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts . . . Judicial immunity applies however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff." Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). Ajudge can lose his or her immunity when acting in clear absence of jurisdiction, but one must distinguish acts taken in error or acts that are performed in excess of a judge's authority (which remain absolutely immune) from those acts taken in clear absence of jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1991) () Thus, for example, in a case where a judge actually ordered the seizure of an individual by means of excessive force, an act clearly in excess of his legal authority, he remained immune because the order was given in his capacity as a judge and not with the clear absence of jurisdiction. Id.; see also Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075 ()
Here, the order denying plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal was clearly a judicial act, because defendants issued the order in their capacity as the assigned circuit judges in an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that defendants somehow erred or acted in excess of their authority, defendants did not act in clear absence of jurisdiction when they issued an order in a case pending before them. Accordingly, defendants are immune from liability for damages.
Therefore, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. Furthermore, because plaintiff is unable to cure the defects of his claims against defendants by further amendment, the undersigned finds that granting leave to amend would be futile and recommends that dismissal be with prejudice. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
Since 2011 and as of the date of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff has filed approximately 25 civil rights actions in this court, of which 16 have already been dismissed.1While this court lacks the time and resources to extensively review each of these cases, plaintiff's lawsuits all target various persons directly or indirectly involved in custody proceedings concerning plaintiff's son and daughter that are pending in the state courts. As another magistrate judge of this court has observed, it appears that plaintiff is "attempting to use the federal courts for the nefarious purpose of harassing the state court decision makers and others involved in his child custody cases and/or family law matters." See Todd v. Shoopman et al., 2:12-cv-1768-JAM-GGH, ECF No. 3 at 6.
In several previously-dismissed actions, plaintiff asserted claims against state courts and/or the state court judges who presided over certain aspects of plaintiff's child custody cases and proceedings, or alternatively, sought to appeal their orders in this court. See Todd v. McElhany, 2:11-cv-2346-LKK-DAD, ECF No. 1 (involving Judge McElhany of Placer County Superior Court); Todd v. Ellis, 2:11-cv-2598-GEB-JFM, ECF Nos. 1, 7 (involving Judge Ellis of Solano County Superior Court); Todd v. Curtis et al., 2:12-cv-1323-MCE-EFB, ECF No. 1 (involving Judge Curtis of the Placer County Superior Court); Todd v. McElhany et al., 2:12-cv-1378-MCE-EFB, ECF No. 1 (involving Judge McElhany of the Placer County Superior Court); Todd v. Ichikawa et al., 2:12-cv-1379-MCE-GGH, ECF No. 1 (involving Judge Ichikawa of the Solano County Superior Court); Todd v. Ellis et al., 2:12-cv-1492-LKK-CKD, ECF Nos. 1, 3 (involving Judge Ellis of the Solano County Superior Court); Todd v. Bahrke et al., 2:13-cv-657-JAM-CKD, ECF Nos. 1, 2 (involving claims against several state court judges [including Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye of the California Supreme Court], state court commissioners, state court executives, state court clerks, state court court reporters, etc.).
In the context of the above-mentioned cases, plaintiff has been instructed on numerousoccasions that judges are absolutely immune from damages for judicial actions taken within the jurisdiction of their courts; that plaintiffs' claims against the superior courts were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; and that federal courts were not the proper forum in which to appeal, or seek review of, state court orders made in child custody and family law proceedings. Nevertheless, plaintiff continues to file cases alleging claims of that nature. See, e.g., Todd v. Canby et al., 2:13-cv-1018-GEB-AC, ECF No. 1 (instant case filed May 22, 2013, involving Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals circuit judges Canby and Clifton); Todd v. Ross et al., 2:13-cv-1860-LKK-DAD, ECF No. 1 (case filed on September 9, 2013, including claims against state court commissioner John Ross and the Placer County Superior Court).
In addition to suing courts, judges, and commissioners, plaintiff has also sued court-appointed mediators in his state court custody cases. See Todd v. Shoopman et al., 2:12-cv-1768-JAM-GGH, ECF No. 1 (involving mediator Juanita Shoopman, assigned by the Solano County Superior Court); Todd v. Landrum et al., 2:12-cv-1770-LKK-KJN, ECF No. 1 (involving mediator Paul Landrum, assigned by the Solano County Superior Court). Although the courts in these cases have carefully explained to plaintiff that mediators are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity when performing judge-type duties, plaintiff continues to file cases involving claims against court-appointed mediators based on the recommendations that they made in plaintiff's child custody cases. See, e.g. Todd v. Ellis et al., 2:13-cv-273-MCE-AC, ECF Nos. 1, 8 (case filed on February 13, 2013, again involving mediators Shoopman and Landrum); Todd v. Bahrke et al., 2:13-cv-657-JAM-CKD, ECF Nos. 1, 2 (case filed on April 4, 2013, involving mediators Juan Martinez and James Brentt).
Furthermore, plaintiff has brought lawsuits against social workers, police departments, and county prosecutors for alleged failure to investigate and prosecute certain individuals directly or indirectly involved in plaintiff's child custody cases. See, e.g., Todd v. Ackley et al., 2:12-cv-470-JAM-GGH, ECF No. 2 (involving social worker for Tehama...
To continue reading
Request your trial