Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01898/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01898-1/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

On September 23, 2009, after reviewing the complaint and the request to proceed in

forma pauperis, the Court ordered as follows: 

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 11 Filed 10/21/09 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. 

On October 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to cure the

above discussed deficiencies by claiming that he is not challenging Judge Rea’s decision, but

instead seeks to hold him accountable for his “bias[ ] and fraud and falsely [sic].” Doc. #10

at 2. Plaintiff then goes on to recount the reasons why Judge Rea’s decision was incorrect.

Having reviewed the amended complaint, the Court continues to find that Plaintiff is

attempting to sue a person who is immune from suit. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim

and this case will be dismissed. Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #4) is

denied;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed because the amended

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. #8) is denied as

moot.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01898-JAT Document 11 Filed 10/21/09 Page 2 of 2