Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01797/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01797-0/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL D. FOLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUSAN ILLSTON, SANDRA BROWN

ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM ALSUP, EDWARD

JELLEN, THOMAS CARLSON, RANDALL

NEWSOME, LOIS BRADY, VIVIAN RHOE,

CHARLES NOVACK, ANDREW CHUNG,

KORNFIELD, PAUL & NYBERG,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-01797 MMC

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DISMISSING ACTION

Before the Court is plaintiff Darrell D. Foley’s complaint, filed May 2, 2005 against

defendants Susan Illston, Sandra Brown Armstrong, William Alsup, Edward Jellen, Thomas

Carlson, Randall Newsome, Lois Brady , Vivian Rhoe, Charles Novack, Andrew Chung, and

Kornfield, Paul & Nyberg, by which plaintiff seeks damages in the total amount of $20 million. 

Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed concurrently

therewith. Having read and considered the papers filed by plaintiff, the Court will DENY the

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISS the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

Case 3:05-cv-01797-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 5
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

1Judges Illston, Armstrong, and Alsup are United States District Court Judges. Judges

Jellen, Carlson, and Newsome are United States Bankruptcy Judges.

2

1915(e)(2).

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “any court of the United States may authorize the

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or

appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person possesses that the person is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Where such

an affidavit is filed, however, § 1915 requires the court to dismiss the case “at any time” if the

Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, the action fails to state a claim, the

action is frivolous or malicious, or the action seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

DISCUSSION

1. Absolute Judicial Immunity

Judges Illston, Armstrong, Alsup, Jellen, Carlson, and Newsome (“Judicial

Defendants”)1 are all entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their judicial actions. See

Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). “Judges are immune from damage

actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.” Id. “Judicial immunity

applies ‘however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its

consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.’” Id. (citation omitted). A judge lacks

immunity only where he or she acts “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Id. (citation

omitted).

Plaintiff’s allegations that the Judicial Defendants acted “outside of [their] jurisdiction”

are without merit. (See Compl. at 11.) The Supreme Court illustrated the distinction between

an act in clear absence of jurisdiction and an act in excess of jurisdiction with the following

Case 3:05-cv-01797-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 5
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

example:

[I]f a probate judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a

criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would

not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a

criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would

merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune.

See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 n. 7 (1978) (citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335,

352 (1871)). In the instant case, plaintiff’s allegations against the Judicial Defendants arise

from judicial acts such as denying an appeal, dismissing a complaint, and relating cases, all

of which were within their jurisdiction as judges. (See Compl. at 11-14.) 

Accordingly, the Judicial Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity, and the Court

will dismiss the claims against said defendants with prejudice.

2. Derived Judicial Immunity

Lois Brady, a bankruptcy trustee, is entitled to derived judicial immunity. See Lonneker

Farms, Inc. v. Klobucher, 804 F.2d 1096, 1097 (9th Cir. 1986). “[A] trustee in bankruptcy or an

official acting under the authority of the bankruptcy judge, is entitled to derived judicial

immunity because he is performing an integral part of the judicial process.” Id. “Thus, the

trustee also loses his immunity if he acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” See Mullis v.

United States Bankr. Ct. for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). In the

instant case, plaintiff alleges that Brady violated her fiduciary duty by negligently administering

estate assets, conduct clearly within Brady’s official duties as a bankruptcy trustee. (See

Compl. at 15.)

Accordingly, Brady is entitled to derived judicial immunity, and the Court will dismiss

the claims against Brady with prejudice.

3. Government Attorney Immunity

Andrew Chung, an attorney for the Department of Justice who represented Judge

Jellen in a prior action filed by plaintiff, is entitled to absolute immunity because his actions

were taken in connection with the judicial process. See Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 836

(9th Cir. 1991. In Fry the Ninth Circuit agreed with the government’s position that government

attorneys “fall within the class of government officials whose connection with the judicial

Case 3:05-cv-01797-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/25/05 Page 3 of 5
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

process entitles them to absolute immunity.” See id. “Whether the government attorney is

representing the plaintiff or the defendant, or is conducting a civil trial, criminal prosecution or

an agency hearing, absolute immunity is ‘necessary to assure that . . . advocates . . . can

perform their respective functions without harassment or intimidation.’” Id. at 837(citation

omitted) (ellipses in original). “If the government attorney is performing acts ‘intimately

associated with the judicial phase’ of the litigation, that attorney is entitled to absolute

immunity from damage liability.” Id. In this case, plaintiff’s allegations against Chung arise

from Chung’s representation of Judge Jellen, which is within the judicial phase of litigation. 

(See Compl. at 17-18.)

Accordingly, Chung is entitled to absolute immunity, and the Court will dismiss the

claims against Chung with prejudice.

4. Claims Against Attorney Defendants

Plaintiff’s allegations against attorneys Vivian Rhoe and Charles Novack, and their law

firm, Kornfield, Paul & Nyberg (collectively, “Attorney Defendants”), all of whom are alleged to

have represented plaintiff’s estate in bankruptcy proceedings, do not state a federal claim. 

Rather, plaintiff’s claims against the Attorney Defendants, for harassment, annoyance, and

negligence, arise under state tort law. (See Compl. at 15-18, 99.)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the

Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the Attorney

Defendants, see 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), and will dismiss such claims without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Illston, Armstrong, Alsup, Jellen, Carlson,

Newsome, Brady, and Chung are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims

against Rhoe, Novack, and Kornfield, Paul & Nyberg, and hereby DISMISSES such claims

without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling them in state court.

Case 3:05-cv-01797-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/25/05 Page 4 of 5
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

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2005 

 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01797-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/25/05 Page 5 of 5