Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04053/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04053-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

GLENDA F. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEVEN A. BRICK,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-04053 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND,

DISMISSING ACTION AND DENYING

APPLICATION FOR IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS AS MOOT

On October 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint against Judge Steven A. Brick of the Superior Court

of the County of Alameda. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Brick has ruled against her in a state court case for

discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff seeks “a jury trial, a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from

presiding over any cases before the law and motion department,” compensatory damages, and punitive

damages. Plaintiff also seeks to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against Judge Brick, and to have him

removed from the bench.

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has reviewed the complaint

and concludes that it should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Judge Brick enjoys absolute

judicial immunity from plaintiff’s suit for damages because plaintiff is challenging actions undertaken in

connection with Judge Brick’s judicial duties. See Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990).

With respect to injunctive relief, plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as plaintiff

“asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court

judgment based on that decision . . . .” Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420

F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005). 
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

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without leave to amend and denies the application

to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A

pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it

is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”). The Court

DISMISSES the action and directs the clerk to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
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

GLENDA F. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEVEN A. BRICK,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-04053 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND,

DISMISSING ACTION AND DENYING

APPLICATION FOR IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS AS MOOT

On October 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint against Judge Steven A. Brick of the Superior Court

of the County of Alameda. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Brick has ruled against her in a state court case for

discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff seeks “a jury trial, a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from

presiding over any cases before the law and motion department,” compensatory damages, and punitive

damages. Plaintiff also seeks to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against Judge Brick, and to have him

removed from the bench.

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has reviewed the complaint

and concludes that it should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Judge Brick enjoys absolute

judicial immunity from plaintiff’s suit for damages because plaintiff is challenging actions undertaken in

connection with Judge Brick’s judicial duties. See Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990).

With respect to injunctive relief, plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as plaintiff

“asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court

judgment based on that decision . . . .” Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420

F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005). 
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

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without leave to amend and denies the application

to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A

pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it

is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”). The Court

DISMISSES the action and directs the clerk to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge