Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01155/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01155-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

 Plaintiff originally named other defendants and alleged additional causes of action, but

on June 11, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss other defendants and dismiss

all but three causes of action against the Defendant federal District Judge. (Doc. No. 8.)

- 1 - 10cv1155

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1155 H (POR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS

OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiff Jessica Seymour commenced this action in San Diego

Superior Court against a District Court Judge, alleging causes of action for conspiring to keep

from seeking justice; conspiring to damage, defraud, obstruct justice; and purposeful negligent

misuse and discoloring of Acts, Statutes, and Laws.1

 On May 28, 2010, the United States of

America removed the case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1442. (Doc. No. 1.) On

June 11, 2010, after reviewing the complaint, the Court noted that Plaintiff appears to bring

this action against the Defendant Judge in her official capacity as a judge, and ordered Plaintiff

to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the complaint on grounds of judicial

immunity. (Doc. No. 8.)

Judges are entitled to absolute immunity for actions undertaken in their judicial

Case 3:10-cv-01155-H-POR Document 11 Filed 08/12/10 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 - 10cv1155

capacity. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). Absolute immunity

insulates judges from charges of erroneous acts or irregular action, even when it is alleged that

such action was driven by malicious or corrupt motives, or when the exercise of judicial

authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors. See In re Castillo, 297 F.3d

940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). “A judge loses absolute immunity only when he acts in the clear

absence of all jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature.” Schucker, 846 F.2d

at 1204; see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). 

 On July 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 28-page response to the Court’s order to show cause,

restating the allegations of her complaint. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff argues that the Judge “did

not afford [Plaintiff] equal protection under the law” and “prejudiced [Plaintiff’s] petition to

have depositions ordered prior to bringing suit.” (Id. at 4.) After careful consideration of the

complaint as well as Plaintiff’s briefing in response to the order to show cause, the Court

concludes that judicial immunity applies to Plaintiff’s claims against the Judge. The actions

alleged in the complaint fall within the scope of the official judicial function and jurisdiction.

As such, the Judge’s actions are protected by absolute immunity, which is essential to the

judicial process. See Schucker, 846 F.2d at 1204. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s

complaint on grounds of judicial immunity. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2010

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:10-cv-01155-H-POR Document 11 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2