Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03849/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03849-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD G. STINSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3849 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

MOTIONS FOR STIPULATION, FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, FOR

SAFEGUARD OF CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS, FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

AND TO BE AWARDED

COMPENSATION; GRANTING

REQUEST FOR CASE STATUS AND

MOTION RULING

(Docket Nos. 6, 7, 15, 16, 18, 24, 26, 27,

29 & 31)

On June 20, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the

California State Prison Solano (“Solano”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated his rights in

connection with the revocation of his probation. By separate order filed concurrently

herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

Case 3:06-cv-03849-MMC Document 39 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

Plaintiff names as defendants a district attorney, a state superior court, and several

state trial and appellate court judges, alleging they violated his rights in connection with the

revocation of his probation and subsequent appeal thereof. Plaintiff’s claims against the

Alameda County Superior Court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Simmons v.

Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156,1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding 11th

Amendment bars suit against state courts and their employees). Plaintiff’s claims against the

state court judges, which claims are based on their rulings in connection with the revocation

of his probation and the denial of his state court appeal, are barred because state court judges

are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for acts performed in their judicial

capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to

actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Finally, plaintiff’s claims against the prosecutor, in which

plaintiff alleges the prosecutor violated his rights in prosecuting him at the probation

revocation hearing, are barred because the prosecutor is an officer of the court entitled to

absolute immunity for his conduct as an advocate during course of a criminal prosecution. 

See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993). 

In sum, the individual defendants in the complaint are absolutely immune from

liability on plaintiff’s claims, and the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the state

court. Accordingly, the complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief.

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-03849-MMC Document 39 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a

cognizable claim for relief. In light of this dismissal, the following motions are DENIED:

“Motion for Stipulation,” filed July 10, 2006; motion for summary judgment, filed July 20,

2006; motion for appointment of counsel, filed September 27, 2006; “Motion For Safeguard

of Constitutional Rights,” filed October 4, 2006; motions for entry of default, filed,

respectively, October 23, 2006 and November 28, 2006; and “Motion To Be Awarded

Compensation,” filed November 18, 2006.

Plaintiff’s motion “Requesting Status and Motion Ruling,” filed November 28, 2006,

is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 6, 7, 15, 16, 18, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 31.

 The Clerk shall close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03849-MMC Document 39 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3