Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00953-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANA K. WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:07-cv-00953 OWW TAG 

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

vs. CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM OVER WHICH THIS COURT

MADERA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE HAS JURISDICTION

EDWARD P. MOFFAT, BRUCE (Doc. 10)

FRANCES KENNEDY, et al.,

 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S

Defendants. PENDING MOTION FOR SERVICE

 / (Doc. 11)

On September 6, 2007, Plaintiff Lana K. Williams (“Williams”), a non-prisoner proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed an amended complaint pursuant to Court order. (Docs. 3, 5). In her

amended complaint, Williams alleged that the state court judge and others engaged in wrongful acts in

connection with the probate of her father’s estate. (Doc. 5). The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On October 16, 2007, the Magistrate Judge screened Williams’ amended complaint, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Upon finding that the claims in the amended complaint either were

barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity, based on state law with no diversity jurisdiction that

would enable this Court to consider the matter, or otherwise failed to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending that the

amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice and the action be closed. (Doc. 10). On October 31,

2007, Williams filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, in which, among other things,

she (1) cited inapplicable provisions of the United States Code to support her substantive arguments;

(2) contended that judges were not immune from suit since they could be removed from office;

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 11/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

(3) argued that, because she had complied with all of this Court’s orders, her case should be allowed to

proceed; and (4) raised unrelated issues of danger to her person. (Doc. 12). Williams’ objections,

however, failed to address the jurisdictional issues that prevent this Court from hearing her probaterelated case, and her arguments are insufficient to rebut the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully

reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendations filed on August

28, 2007, are supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 10), filed October 16, 2007, are ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Plaintiff, Lana K. Williams’ amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for

lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; 

3. Plaintiff’s pending motion for service (Doc. 11), filed October 16, 2007, is DENIED as

MOOT; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 2