Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02191/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02191-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Justin Sloan Medved, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G Murray Snow, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02191-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pro se Plaintiff Justin Sloan Medved has sued United States District Judges John 

Joseph Tuchi and Grant Murray Snow. Docs. 1, 6, 8. Plaintiff has also filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (Doc. 2), a motion to allow electronic 

filing by a party appearing without an attorney (Doc. 4), and a motion entitled permission 

to the exercise of authority by District Judge (Doc. 7). 

 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 

. . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. “It is also clear that section 

1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 

complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. 

 Plaintiff’s claim against Judges Tuchi and Snow is based on decisions they made 

Case 2:14-cv-02191-DGC Document 9 Filed 11/05/14 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 

in his previous lawsuits. See Medved v. Medved, No. CV-14-02005-PHX-JJT 

(September 15, 2014); Medved v. Medved, No. CV-14-02076-PHX-GMS 

(September 22, 2014). The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaints and finds that they 

fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The complaints are barred by the 

doctrine of judicial immunity. 

 The doctrine immunizes a judge from suit, not just from an ultimate assessment of 

damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 

511, 526 (1985)). “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. “[T]he factors determining whether an act by a 

judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate to the nature of the act itself, i. e., whether it is a function 

normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i. e., whether they 

dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 

(1978). “Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in 

the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12. 

 By rendering decisions in lawsuits Plaintiff filed in federal court, Judges Tuchi 

and Snow were acting in their judicial capacities and had jurisdiction. See United States 

v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (“[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine 

its own jurisdiction.”). Plaintiff argues that the decisions of Judges Tuchi and Snow were 

malicious and erroneous. See Doc. 6, ¶¶ 9-24. Even if these allegations were true, 

however, the doctrine of judicial immunity would apply. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11 (finding 

that “judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice”). 

 Because judicial immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims and they cannot be saved 

through amendment, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s (Second) Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

 2. All pending motions (Docs. 2, 4 and 7) are denied as moot. 

Case 2:14-cv-02191-DGC Document 9 Filed 11/05/14 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 

 3. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 5th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-02191-DGC Document 9 Filed 11/05/14 Page 3 of 3