Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00200/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00200-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMAN M. THOMAS, No. CIV.S-05-0200 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STATES OF AMERICA, GREGORY G.

HOLLOWS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE,

Defendant.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(21),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma

pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28

Case 2:05-cv-00200-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any

time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. Having carefully reviewed the allegations of plaintiff’s

complaint, the undersigned will recommend that this action be

dismissed since it seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

The Supreme Court has held that judges acting within the

course and scope of their judicial duties are absolutely immune from

liability for damages under § 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547

(1967). A judge is "subject to liability only when he has acted in

the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.'" Stump v. Sparkman, 435

U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351

(1872)). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the

action he took “was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess

of his authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 356. Moreover, a

judge's jurisdiction is quite broad. “[T]he factors determining

whether an act by a judge is a ’judicial’ one relates to the nature

of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed

by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether

they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Partington v.

Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 866 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. at 362). See also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991)

(in determining whether judicial immunity applies, court looks to the

“particular act’s relation to a general function normally performed

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00200-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 4
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

1 The court has considered whether plaintiff’s complaint seeks

declaratory or injunctive relief. However, plaintiff’s request for

relief contains no discernible allegations in this regard. (Compl.

at 10-11.)

3

by a judge”); Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 967 (9th

Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, initiated this § 1983

action by filing his pro se complaint on January 31, 2005. According

to the complaint, defendant Magistrate Judge Hollows violated

plaintiff’s constitutional rights in connection with the issuance of

findings and recommendations recommending the dismissal of a previous

civil rights action initiated by plaintiff in this court. (See Herman

M. Thomas v. Judge Tochterman, et al., No. CIV S-03-0413 FCD GGH P.) 

Taking the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint as true, it is clear

that the conduct complained of stems from functions normally

performed by a judge and that plaintiff dealt with defendant in his

judicial capacity. Thus, defendant Hollows is entitled to judicial

immunity with respect to plaintiff’s claim for damages brought

against him.1 The undersigned will therefore recommend that this

action be dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed without leave to amend and that this action be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

Case 2:05-cv-00200-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 16, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\thomas.ifp.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-00200-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/17/05 Page 4 of 4