Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00642/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00642-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA 

DREVALEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAUREL BEELER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-00642-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND 

REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 

CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva filed this case against 

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, based on judicial actions taken in Case No. 16-cv-7414-LB, 

Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System. (Compl. Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also applied to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the 

case is clearly frivolous, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, the Court reassigns 

this case to a district judge and recommends that the case be dismissed with prejudice. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time 

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner, 

807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be 

dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).

Case 4:20-cv-00642-KAW Document 6 Filed 02/03/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2) 

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 

defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the 

complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to 

afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 

2010)(citations omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be 

given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th 

Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-

31 (9th Cir. 2000).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings suit against Judge Beeler based on Judge Beeler’s rulings in Drevaleva v. 

Alameda Health System, Inc. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Each of Plaintiff’s claims challenge specific orders 

and rulings. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-18.) Plaintiff then alleges that “Judge Beeler’s actions were aimed to 

aid and abet my abusers,” before again asserting that Judge Beeler erred in dismissing her 

amended complaint, not allowing discovery, deciding motions on the papers, and withdrawing her 

in forma pauperis status on appeal. (Compl. ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by judicial immunity. The Supreme Court has long held that 

“judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial 

acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done 

maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978) (internal quotation 

omitted). “[T]he scope of the judge’s jurisdiction must be construed broadly when the issue is the 

immunity of the judge. A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was 

in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to 

liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 356-57 (internal 

quotation omitted). Thus, even allegations of a conspiracy between a judge and a party “does not 

pierce the immunity extended to judges . . . . As long as the judge’s ultimate acts are judicial 

Case 4:20-cv-00642-KAW Document 6 Filed 02/03/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

actions taken within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, immunity applies.” Ashelman v. Pope, 

793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, Plaintiff’s claims challenge Judge Beeler’s orders and rulings in a case that was 

proceeding before Judge Beeler. Thus, judicial immunity applies. While Plaintiff complains that 

Judge Beeler repeatedly ruled against her and was trying to aid Defendants, this is irrelevant; 

“[r]uling against a party, even repeatedly, does not mean that a judge is acting in his or her 

personal capacity. Judicial immunity ‘applies even when the judge is accused of acting 

maliciously and corruptly.’” Nielsen v. Lunas, Case No. 16-cv-3631-EMC, 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 13371, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016).

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the case be dismissed with prejudice because 

Plaintiff cannot state a claim.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with 

the recommendation that the action be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00642-KAW Document 6 Filed 02/03/20 Page 3 of 3