Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02508/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Casey R. Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Susan R. Bolton, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-02508-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff Casey R. Williams commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint on 

July 26, 2016. Doc. 1. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

(Doc. 2), and a motion for speedy trial (Doc. 3). For the reasons that follow, the Court 

will dismiss the complaint and deny the other motions as moot. 

In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) 

applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc). “Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss, sua 

sponte and prior to service of process, a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 

1130. A court dismissing under this statute “should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not 

possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1127-29 (citations omitted). 

Case 2:16-cv-02508-DGC Document 7 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from multiple defects. First, Plaintiff fails to allege a 

basis for federal jurisdiction. He brings no federal claims, nor is there complete diversity 

among the parties. Plaintiff is an Arizona resident, and the only named defendant is 

Judge Susan R. Bolton of this Court. Second, although Plaintiff names Judge Bolton as a 

defendant, his complaint contains no factual allegations against her. Third, the complaint 

does not identify a plausible factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claim. The complaint 

consists of a single paragraph that discusses the hardship of legal fees and costs, pain and 

suffering apparently attributable to other cases filed in this Court, and the need for 

witness protection. Doc. 1. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and 

the Court would dismiss the complaint without prejudice were it not for a more serious 

defect. Judges acting in their judicial capacity are protected from civil lawsuits by 

absolute immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). “[Judicial] immunity is 

overcome in only two sets of circumstances. First, a judge is not immune from liability 

for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity.” Id. at 11. 

“Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the 

complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 12. 

Plaintiff has filed other cases in this Court that have been dismissed for failure to 

state a claim. See Williams v. Black, 13-cv-1978-DGC, Williams v. Arpaio, 16-cv-2507-

DLR. These cases have included fanciful allegations of war crimes, spying on Plaintiff 

by spy satellites, and demands for billions in damages. The Court concludes that Plaintiff 

can state no claim against Judge Bolton that would survive her absolute immunity, and 

therefore will dismiss this complaint without leave to amend. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for IFP status (Doc. 2) is denied as moot. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for speedy trial (Doc. 3) is denied as moot. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-02508-DGC Document 7 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 7th day of September, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02508-DGC Document 7 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 3