Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01389/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01389-1/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SERGEI PORTNOY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN K. DELANEY and TROY L 

NUNLEY, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv1389 MCE AC (PS) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local 

Rule 302(c)(21). 

 Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that he is unable to 

prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 

pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

I. SCREENING STANDARD 

 The federal in forma pauperis statute requires 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-01389-MCE-AC Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 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

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 claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the 

complaint,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56), 

construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Von Saher v. Norton Simon 

Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Twombly), and resolve all 

doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738 (1976)). The court need not accept as true, 

legal conclusions “cast in the form of factual allegations.” Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 

F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the 

complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by 

amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT 

 On February 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this court against his former employer. 

Complaint (ECF No. 1) ¶ 3; see Portnoy v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., 2:14-cv-0423 

TLN CKD (E.D. Cal.). On February 24, 2014, the defendant magistrate judge assigned to the 

case, Hon. Carolyn K. Delaney, filed an Order and Findings and Recommendations (“Findings 

and Recommendations”), recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice on the grounds 

of res judicata. Complaint ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that this was a “false dismissal,” that the 

“Magistrate judge deliberately lied,” and that in fact, the case was an “absolutely different 

action.” Id. On April 16, 2014, the defendant district judge assigned to the case, Hon. Troy L. 

Case 2:15-cv-01389-MCE-AC Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 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

Nunley, adopted the Findings and Recommendations. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff alleges that this was a 

“‘False Order’” that was issued under the “Rubber Stamp Doctrine.” Id. On September 26, 2014, 

an appellate panel of “Tallman, Clifton, and Nguyen, Circuit Judges,” summarily affirmed the 

“‘False Order,’” also under the “Rubber Stamp Doctrine.” Id. ¶ 24. 

 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics 

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Complaint at 1. The complaint alleges that defendants violated 

plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due process rights by dismissing his case sua sponte and without a 

hearing, by invoking res judicata to dismiss the case, by issuing a dismissal order that was a 

“‘fraud upon the court,’” and by failing to address key issues. Complaint at 7-20. Plaintiff 

further alleges that this conduct violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Id. at 20. 

Finally, plaintiff alleges that the district judge “violated his de novo respon[s]ibilities.” Id. 

at 20-21. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief – the reopening and adjudication of 2:14-cv-0423 – 

along with declaratory relief, and the costs of litigation. Id. at 20. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 Federal judges are absolutely immune from suit where, as here, they are sued for their 

judicial actions. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (citing Forrester v. 

White, 484 U.S. 219, 227-229 (1988) and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)); 

Lonneker Farms, Inc. v. Klobucher, 804 F.2d 1096, 1097 (9th Cir. 1986) (federal judge enjoys 

absolute judicial immunity when sued for actions that “were judicial in nature and were not done 

in clear absence of all jurisdiction”). Moreover, this immunity exists for suits such as this one, 

seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief. Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of 

Nevada 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (“We hold that when a person who is alleged to have 

caused a deprivation of constitutional rights while acting under color of federal law can 

successfully assert judicial or quasi-judicial immunity from damages, that immunity also will bar 

declaratory and injunctive relief”), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988).1

 Because the only defendants named in this lawsuit are absolutely immune from this 

 

1

 Mullis distinguished Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), which declined to extend absolute 

judicial immunity from injunctive actions to a state Magistrate. Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1391-94. 

Case 2:15-cv-01389-MCE-AC Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 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

lawsuit, it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and should be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED, and 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

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

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 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: August 11, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01389-MCE-AC Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 4