Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01197/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01197-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL POWELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CLAIFORNIA, 

PLACER COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1197 TLN GGH 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a first amended 

complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 12, after his original pleading was dismissed as legally frivolous. 

ECF No. 3. The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 

Cir.1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a 

Case 2:16-cv-01197-TLN-GGH Document 13 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 4
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

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set 

of facts that would satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of this court. 

DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff's claims seem to arise out of contentions regarding custody of and visitation with 

his children. He complains that the judicial officers who dealt with the dispute venued in the 

Placer County Superior Court were biased, ignored his several recusal demands, and refused to 

follow proper procedures for addressing those demands. He attempts to meet the jurisdiction 

requirement by listing the following “Violation[s] of Civil Rights in the preamble to his Amended 

Complaint: “Inequality to Parents/Bi-Racial Kids; Denial of Procedural Due Process; Dereliction 

of Duty and Office; Allowing Circus Atmosphere; Spoliation of Evidence; Intentional 

Negligence; Willful Misconduct; Loss of Jurisdiction, etc.” Each of these purported violations 

were inflicted by Superior Court Judicial Officers, both Superior Court Judges and 

Commissioners who were sitting in their official capacities during the course of the litigation in 

which plaintiff was a party.1

 

 The tenets of judicial immunity were explained to plaintiff in this court’s earlier order 

dismissing his original Complaint with leave to amend and that judicial officers could not be sued 

in federal courts. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 360 (1978); Butz v. Economou, 439 

U.S.478, 511, 512 (1978); Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999), and that 

this court could not review the determinations of state courts. ECF 3 at 3:8-22. His First 

Amended Complaint did not acknowledge this bar, but iterated it in a slightly different format 

than had the original Complaint. 

 Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not 

just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Judicial 

immunity is overcome only when a judges actions are either (1) nonjudicial in nature, i.e., not 

taken in the judge's judicial capacity,2 Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227–29 (1988); or (2) 

 

1

 He also lists the Department of Child Support Services, Placer Co., but fails to state any facts 

with regard to their purported culpability, along with Entities and Individual Respondents, 

Additional Parties to be named later. 

2

 As stated earlier, all of the behaviors and actions complained of by Plaintiff occurred in the 

Case 2:16-cv-01197-TLN-GGH Document 13 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 4
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

taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 

(1991). “Allegations of malice or bad faith in the execution of the officer’s duties, such as are 

alleged here, are insufficient to sustain the complaint when the officer possesses absolute judicial 

immunity.” Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir.1985). 

 Finally, plaintiff claims that these judicial officers did not follow the state court 

procedures regarding challenges to their impartiality and behavior on the bench. He cites no 

authority, nor is this court aware of any, that allows a Federal District Court to oversee or control 

the performance of State courts adherence to state law. 

CONCLUSION 

 The court granted plaintiff leave to amend with instructions on how to amend his 

complaint in compliance with Rule 8. Nonetheless, the FAC still fails to allege facts sufficient to 

state a claim against any defendants. As plaintiff has had ample opportunity to correct the 

deficiencies in his complaint, and he continues to make conclusory allegations which the court 

previously advised plaintiff are insufficient, the court finds that any further attempt to amend 

would be futile. Even if plaintiff were able to conform his pleading to the requirements of Rule 8, 

the claims are barred by judicial immunity. That defect cannot be cured by amendment. Any 

relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled must be sought within the State Court system, not in a 

federal court. 

CONCLUSION 

 In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's first 

amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

 

courtroom while the defendant judicial officials were on the bench and acting in their judicial 

capacities. 

Case 2:16-cv-01197-TLN-GGH Document 13 Filed 12/12/16 Page 3 of 4
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

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 

Dated: December 10, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-01197-TLN-GGH Document 13 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 4