Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01898/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01898-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rasool Kashkool, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Rea; Jane Doe Rea, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1898-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28

U.S.C. § 1915.

A. 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district

court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the

"allegation of poverty is untrue" or that the "action or appeal" is "frivolous or

malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners can

file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma

pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma

pauperis complaints"). "It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits

but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim." Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2 (D. Ariz. 2005).

Case 2:09-cv-01898-JAT Document 6 Filed 09/23/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

B. Plaintiff’s complaint

In this case, the Court has reviewed the Complaint and it appears to be frivolous.

Specifically, it sues the Honorable John Rea of the Maricopa County Superior Court for a

decision he made in a case in which Plaintiff was a party. Plaintiff disagrees with that

decision. In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to, “Fire this Judge from Superior

Court” and award, “pushing damage for amount of $10,000,000.” Doc. #1 at 2.

Judges are immune from suit for all actions taken in their judicial capacity, Mireles

v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); even if the decision was erroneous, Cleavinger v. Saxner,

474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985). Thus, Plaintiff cannot sue Judge Rea for a decision with

which Plaintiff disagrees. Additionally, this Court does not have the power or authority to

fire a Superior Court Judge; so, this Court cannot grant Plaintiff the relief he seeks. Finally,

“pushing damage” is not a kind of damage recognized by state or federal law.

C. Conclusion

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to seek monetary damages against a defendant

who is immune and fails to state a claim for injunctive relief that is within this Court’s

power, the Court will not grant in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff will be given leave to file

an amended complaint, which the Court will then consider and determine whether in forma

pauperis status is appropriate. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty days of

the date of this Order or this case will be dismissed for the reasons stated above.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01898-JAT Document 6 Filed 09/23/09 Page 2 of 2