Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06320/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06320-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 The court notes that plaintiff has attempted to serve defendant on February 12, 2007,

by mailing a copy of the summons, complaint, and the magistrate judge's Order Denying Premature

Motion to Compel dated January 31, 2007. Personal delivery of the summons and complaint by the

plaintiff does not constitute valid service on the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS—C-06-06320 RMW

MAG

E-Filed on: 2/22/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAUL A. HARPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD WIEKING,

Defendant.

No. C-06-06320 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

[Re Docket No. 6]

On October 10, 2006, plaintiff initiated this action against Richard Wieking, Clerk of the United

States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiff subsequently filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. As part of his suit, plaintiff also filed a motion to compel discovery, which

was denied by the magistrate judge because summons has not been issued due in part to the pendency

of plaintiff's in forma pauperis application.1

In forma pauperis status requires two findings: a finding of indigence and a finding that the

underlying claim has some merit. See Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th

Cir. 1981). Plaintiff satisfies the first requirement because of his low stated income, however, the court

Case 5:06-cv-06320-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS—C-06-06320 RMW

MAG 2

finds that because plaintiff seeks to sue a court clerk for actions taken in the course of his official duties,

his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On that ground, the court denies

plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff's claim appears to be based on the Civil Justice Reform Act ("CJRA"), 28 U.S.C. §§

471-482 and seeks, inter alia, "civil damages for violations of Fed. R. App. Proc. [3 and 4]." Plaintiff's

claims are apparently related to entry of a "Notice of Appeal" on the docket for a case previously filed

by the plaintiff in this court, Harper v. Catterson, Case No. 06-02587-SI. Plaintiff alleges that he has

been deprived of his civil rights as a result of the entry of this "false" Notice of Appeal and seeks

$1,000,000 in compensatory damages. 

"Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations

when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process." Mullis v. United States

Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.1987); see also Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240,

1244-45 (9th Cir. 1996) (outlining absolute judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity of court

clerk). "When judicial immunity is extended to officials other than judges, it is because their judgments

are functionally comparable to those of judges – that is, because they, too, exercise a discretionary

judgment as a part of their function." Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, 508 U.S. 429, 436 (1993) (quotation

omitted). Where a clerk files a document with the court, he is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for

his actions, provided the acts complained of are within the clerk's jurisdiction. Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390.

The filing and docketing a notice of appeal is an integral part of the judicial process, and court clerks

are the officials through whom such filing is done. Since plaintiff's claims are based on the clerk's filing

and processing of the notice of appeal (or other similar court documents), defendant is entitled to quasijudicial immunity. Thus, plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The court finds that plaintiff's claim does not have the requisite merit to permit the plaintiff to proceed

in forma pauperis. Therefore, the action will be dismissed unless the required filing fee is paid by

March 23, 2007.

DATED: 2/21/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06320-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS—C-06-06320 RMW

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been sent to:

Plaintiff:

Paul A. Harper 

P.O. Box 32621

Long Beach, CA 90832 

PRO SE

Dated: 2/22/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-06320-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 3