Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00301/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00301-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBBY GENTHNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDGE M. BRUCE SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00301-DAD-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND 

DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF Nos. 1, 2)

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE

Debby Genthner (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed March 4, 2016. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court 

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In 

determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard 

used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 

of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Case 1:16-cv-00301-DAD-SAB Document 3 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 6
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

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s liability . 

. . „stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.‟” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as 

true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff‟s legal 

conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

II.

DISCUSSION

On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed an action in the Superior Court of Fresno County. 

(ECF No. 1 at 23-41.) On November 20, 2014, Judge Smith filed an order finding Plaintiff to be 

a vexatious litigant. (Id. at 50-52.) Plaintiff did not post the bond as required by the November 

20, 2014 order so on January 14, 2015, Judge Kapetan dismissed Plaintiff‟s complaint. (Id. at 

147.) Plaintiff brings this action against Judge Smith and Judge Kapetan alleging violations of 

the Fourth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments, the California Constitution and the California 

Penal Code. (Id. at 4.) 

A. Judicial Officers Are Entitled to Absolute Judicial Immunity

Absolute judicial immunity is afforded to judges for acts performed by the judge that 

relate to the judicial process. In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended 

(Sept. 6, 2002). “This immunity reflects the long-standing „general principle of the highest 

importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the 

authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of 

personal consequences to himself.‟ ” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1871)). This judicial immunity 

insulates judges from suits brought under section 1983. Olsen, 363 F.3d at 932.

Absolute judicial immunity insulates the judge from actions for damages due to judicial 

acts taken within the jurisdiction of the judge‟s court. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 

(9th Cir. 1986). “Judicial immunity applies „however erroneous the act may have been, and 

Case 1:16-cv-00301-DAD-SAB Document 3 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 6
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

however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.‟ ” Id. (quoting 

Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985)). However a judge is not immune where he acts in 

the clear absence of jurisdiction or for acts that are not judicial in nature. Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 

1075. Judicial conduct falls within “clear absence of all jurisdiction,” where the judge “acted 

with clear lack of all subject matter jurisdiction.” Stone v. Baum, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1174 

(D. Ariz. 2005). 

To determine if an act is judicial in nature, the court considers whether (1) the precise act 

is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge‟s chambers; (3) the controversy 

centered around a case then pending before the judge; and (4) the events at issue arose directly 

and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity. Duvall v. 

Cty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on denial of reh‟g (Oct. 11, 

2001) (quoting Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1999)).

Here, the acts for which Plaintiff seeks to hold Judge Smith and Judge Kapetan liable 

clearly meet the test for judicial action taken within their jurisdiction. Plaintiff‟s case was 

pending before Judge Smith who deemed her to be a vexatious litigant. This is a normal judicial 

function which was taken in court and centered around the case that was then pending before 

Judge Smith. The order arose directly and immediately out of the case pending before Judge 

Smith in his official capacity.

Similarly, when the matter was set for hearing before Judge Kapetan, she determined that 

Plaintiff had not complied with the order requiring her to post a bond. Since Plaintiff had not 

posted the bond, the matter was dismissed. Judge Kapetan was acting in her judicial capacity in 

response to Plaintiff‟s failure to comply with a prior order of the court. 

Both Judge Smith and Judge Kapetan are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for the 

acts upon with this complaint is brought. Because the acts which Plaintiff contends violated her 

civil rights are so clearly judicial acts for which the judges are entitled to absolute judicial 

immunity, the Court finds that this action is frivolous. See Stone, 409 F. Supp. 2d at 1174 

(finding claims against judges acting within the scope of a judicial proceeding to be frivolous as 

a matter of law). The Court recommends that this action be dismissed as frivolous and for failure 

Case 1:16-cv-00301-DAD-SAB Document 3 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 6
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

to state a cognizable claim.

B. Court Cannot Grant Relief Sought 

Further, this Court does not cannot grant the non-monetary relief that Plaintiff is seeking 

in this action. Plaintiff wants Judge Smith and Judge Kapetan removed from the bench and 

criminally prosecuted for the actions taken in her case and to have a warrant issue for the arrest 

of Robert Hedrick. 

1. Court Cannot Initiate a Criminal Prosecution

The Constitution delegates powers of the Federal Government into three defined 

categories: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. Bowsher v. 

Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721 (1986). It is the Executive Branch of the United States that has 

exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case. United States 

v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). As the Judicial Branch, this Court does not have the power 

to criminally prosecute any individual or issue an order for the arrest of Mr. Hedrick. 

2. Federal Court Cannot Direct State Court to Remove Judges From Bench

Similarly, under our federal system of government the allocation of powers sets the 

responsibilities of the states and the federal government. Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 

2364 (2011). This allocation of powers “preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual 

sovereignty of the States.” Id. “The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that 

States function as political entities in their own right.” Id. Accordingly, the federal court does 

not have the authority to order the state court to remove judges from the bench. 

3. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff also seeks a full investigation of the Fresno Police Department and into the 

corruption and coercion between the Fresno Police Department, Fresno County Superior Court, 

and the Fifth Appellate District Court; an order stopping Mr. Hedrick and unknown individuals 

from coming into her home and drugging, raping, and harming her while she sleeps; an order 

stopping Mr. Hedrick and the Fresno Police Department from doing surveillance on her and 

accessing her phone and computer; and for her rape kits to be tested and the information be sent 

to the District Attorney and Attorney General. 

Case 1:16-cv-00301-DAD-SAB Document 3 Filed 03/10/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

In this instance, Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief. Federal courts are courts of limited 

jurisdiction and in considering a request for injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the 

requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of 

Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for 

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an 

actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 

U.S. at 102. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of 

Article III‟s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears 

the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env‟t, 523 U.S. 83, 

103-04 (1998).

Here, Plaintiff has not stated a case or controversy over which this Court has jurisdiction. 

Further, Plaintiff seeks an order for relief over individuals and entities that are not named as 

defendants in her complaint. “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal 

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to 

determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir. 1983). For these reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction and a legal basis to grant the 

relief requested. 

C. Leave to Amend

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party‟s 

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 

party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) 

is very liberal and leave to amend „shall be freely given when justice so requires.‟” Amerisource 

Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices 

the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) 

is futile.” Id. 

In this instance, the Court finds that amendment of the complaint would be futile. 

Case 1:16-cv-00301-DAD-SAB Document 3 Filed 03/10/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Accordingly, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

D. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees in this 

action. However, Plaintiff has failed to adequately complete the form. Plaintiff indicated that 

she has cash or a checking or savings account, but did not indicate the total amount on the form. 

Therefore, the Court is unable to determine if she is entitled to proceed in this action without 

prepayment of fees. Plaintiff‟s application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed March 4, 2016, be DISMISSED without leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim; and

2. Plaintiff‟s application to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court‟s Local Rule 304. Within twenty

(20) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will 

review the magistrate judge‟s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00301-DAD-SAB Document 3 Filed 03/10/16 Page 6 of 6