Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01095/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01095-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELANIE C. LATRONICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01095-DAD-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

Plaintiff Melanie Chantell Latronica, proceeding pro se, filed this action on July 28, 

2016, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief from 

judgment from orders issued in cases decided by Judge Morrison C. England and Judge Richard 

Seeborg. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff‟s complaint be 

dismissed without leave to amend.

I.

SCREENING STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court 

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In 

determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard 

used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and plain 

Case 1:16-cv-01095-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 6
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

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 

of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

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

to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s liability . 

. . „stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.‟” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as 

true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff‟s legal 

conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states that she is removing this action from other federal courts in which the 

judges assigned to the cases issued orders adverse to her. Plaintiff contends that the actions were 

filed in the wrong districts which made it impossible for her to ultimately prevail on the merits of 

her claims. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that she was given the death penalty 

without due process, is innocent, and is not in her body. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that she was 

stolen as a baby and has had 46 years of life long torture in living hell. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states 

that when she filed some of her cases the defendants did not answer; and on August 22, 2012, 

Judge England entered judgment without due process. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff‟s complaint is largely 

unintelligible but she appears to seek relief under Rule 60 for opinions issued by Judge Morrison 

C. England and Judge Richard Seeborg alleging they are responsible for her lifelong torture 

issues. (Id.) 

A. Judicial Officers Are Entitled to Absolute Judicial Immunity

Plaintiff alleges that Judge England denied her due process by entering judgment on 

August 22, 2012. The Court takes judicial notice of Latronica v. State of California, No. 2:12-

cv-01047-MCE-GGH PS (E.D. Cal.). In this action Judge England issued an order on August 

Case 1:16-cv-01095-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 6
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

3

22, 2012 adopting findings and recommendations which recommended dismissing the action 

with prejudice for the plaintiff‟s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with a court 

order. Latronica v. State of California, No. 2:12-cv-01047-MCE-GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 

2012) (ECF No. 13.) 

Absolute judicial immunity is afforded to judges for acts performed by the judge that 

relate to the judicial process. In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended 

(Sept. 6, 2002). “This immunity reflects the long-standing „general principle of the highest 

importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the 

authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of 

personal consequences to himself.‟ ” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1871)). This judicial immunity 

insulates judges from suits brought under section 1983. Olsen, 363 F.3d at 932.

Absolute judicial immunity insulates the judge from actions for damages due to judicial 

acts taken within the jurisdiction of the judge‟s court. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 

(9th Cir. 1986). “Judicial immunity applies „however erroneous the act may have been, and 

however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.‟ ” Id. (quoting 

Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985)). However a judge is not immune where he acts in 

the clear absence of jurisdiction or for acts that are not judicial in nature. Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 

1075. Judicial conduct falls within “clear absence of all jurisdiction,” where the judge “acted 

with clear lack of all subject matter jurisdiction.” Stone v. Baum, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1174 

(D. Ariz. 2005). 

To determine if an act is judicial in nature, the court considers whether (1) the precise act 

is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge‟s chambers; (3) the controversy 

centered around a case then pending before the judge; and (4) the events at issue arose directly 

and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity. Duvall v. 

Cty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on denial of reh‟g (Oct. 11, 

2001) (quoting Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1999)).

Here, the acts for which Plaintiff seeks to hold Judge England liable meet the test for 

Case 1:16-cv-01095-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 6
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

4

judicial action taken within his jurisdiction. Judge England adopted the findings and 

recommendations issued by the magistrate judge after Plaintiff failed to file an amended 

complaint. This is clearly judicial conduct over which Judge England had jurisdiction and that 

falls within Judge England‟s judicial capacity. Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Judge 

England for acts taken within his jurisdiction that are judicial in nature.

B. Rule 60

Plaintiff seeks to have this Court grant relief from orders issued by Federal Judges in 

cases filed in other districts or divisions of this district. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure provides that “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . .from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . . (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) 

the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). 

Rule 60 does not provide a means by which a plaintiff may seek relief of judgment in a 

different court. To obtain review of the decisions issued in her prior cases, Plaintiff was required 

to file a motion in the specific case or seek appellate review in the case. Plaintiff cannot obtain 

relief under Rule 60 in this Court from orders issued in other cases.

C. Venue

Plaintiff seeks to remove cases from the Northern District of California and the 

Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Pursuant to 

section 1441 an action can be removed from state court to federal court if the federal court had 

original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1441 does not provide a means by which a 

party can transfer venue in federal court. 

Here, Plaintiff is alleging that venue was incorrect in actions which she filed in other 

districts or divisions of this district. The judges in these cases have issued decisions adverse to 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot now file a new case challenging the venue in those closed actions.

Challenges to venue are properly made under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 in the filed action. Requests for 

change of venue do not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to judge shop in order to obtain

Case 1:16-cv-01095-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

a different result in her case.

D. Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff also files a memorandum in support of her complaint in which she states that she 

is seeking a writ of habeas corpus, writ of prohibition, and death penalty appeal because she was 

given the death penalty without due process in the 70‟s. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1-2.) In her 

application to proceed without prepayment of fees, Plaintiff states that she is incarcerated and is 

being held at “Unknown HALF-LIFE Para-Sagittal Plane, Possessory Interest Pin.” (ECF No. 3 

at 1.) Plaintiff alleges she has been subjected to torture nonstop since 2012 and nonstop rape 

since 2011. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2.) Plaintiff contends that Merrill Lynch is engaged in the slave 

trade and is selling chattels “to steal their family and or subject their children to the same 

diabolic cruelty and life deprivation, they‟ve also committed murder crimes against chattels and 

filed income tax write offs and got new ones.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that the “poop that come 

out is not [hers] and isn‟t the food [she] ate the day before, Gutted there‟s a catheter and or a 

device that controls whether we go potty, hair glued and glue wax and residue all over the body 

and skin.” (Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).) Plaintiff states that she has been tortured in other 

peoples destroyed bodies. Plaintiff alleges that “she was in her body in Contra Costa County in 

2012 her body has been raped to the Grave and the person detaining her body still hasn‟t stopped 

obviously, instead subjecting her to continues control, ruin and torture, stealing and depriving her 

life and subjecting her to life deprivation and torture in other people‟s bodies.” (Id.) Plaintiff‟s 

allegations are largely incomprehensible, are fanciful, and fail to state a cognizable claim. 

E. Leave to Amend

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the amendment of pleadings. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend „shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.‟” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend 

where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces 

an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. In this instance, the Court finds that 

amendment of the complaint would be futile. Plaintiff is seeking to receive relief from judgment 

Case 1:16-cv-01095-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/03/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

in actions decided in other courts and the named defendants are entitled to judicial immunity. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 

VI.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff‟s complaint, 

filed July 28, 2016, be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and the Clerk of the 

Court be directed to close this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court‟s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 

days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 

magistrate judge‟s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01095-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/03/16 Page 6 of 6