Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00885/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00885-1/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

No. C 10-0885 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 8/23/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VICTOR M. CORREA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN M. HALL, 

Defendant. /

No. C 10-0885 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

prisoner. The Court now reviews the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or

any portion of it, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must nonetheless be liberally construed. Balistreri

Case 3:10-cv-00885-RS Document 15 Filed 08/23/10 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

No. C 10-0885 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be 

drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th

Cir. 1994). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that Stephen M. Hall, a California Superior Court judge, has violated

his state statutory and constitutional rights, as well as his federal rights, by denying plaintiff

access to transcripts, trial exhibits, and evidence used at plaintiff’s trials, thereby preventing

plaintiff from filing an appeal or other court action.

Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. A state judge is 

absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in his judicial

capacity, see Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–55 (1967), but the doctrine of judicial

immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief in § 1983 actions, see Pulliam v. Allen,

466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en

banc). However, § 1983 itself provides that “in any action brought against a judicial officer

for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be

granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42

Case 3:10-cv-00885-RS Document 15 Filed 08/23/10 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

No. C 10-0885 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not alleged, nor is there anything in the amended complaint to

support an inference, that a declaratory decree was violated, or that declaratory relief was

unavailable. Accordingly, plaintiff having failed to state a claim for relief upon which relief

can be granted, the amended complaint is DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00885-RS Document 15 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 3