Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00493/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00493-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER WAMALWA 

KIBUNGUCHY,

Booking #18104725,

Plaintiff,

vs.

POLLY H. SHAMOON, Judge,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

Christopher Kibunguchy (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at San Diego Central Jail 

(“SDCJ”), and proceeding pro se, has filed a form “Complaint of Judicial Conduct or 

Disability” (ECF No. 1) (the “Complaint”). The Complaint appears to challenge San Diego 

Superior Court Judge Polly H. Shamoon’s decision to “describe [Plaintiff] as being a 

danger to the community” upon the “request [of] the DA.” See id. at 1–2. 

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in any district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay 

 

1

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $50. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 

June 1, 2016)). The $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Id.

Case 3:18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG

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

the full filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 

in fees required to commence a civil action, and he has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) & (b). Therefore, no civil action can yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

II. Initial Review of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction 

“must neither be disregarded nor evaded.” Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 

657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 

365, 374 (1978)). The Court must determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter 

jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

 Plaintiff has filed a form Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability against

Judge Shamoon based on what appears to be a decision or ruling she made related to either 

his criminal case or the conditions of his detention pending trial. (ECF No. 1). However, 

a complaint of judicial misconduct is not the proper vehicle for challenging a judge’s 

rulings. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 550 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint also fails to allege subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), or 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint

must be dismissed because it fails to allege federal jurisdiction. 

Because the allegations attached to the Complaint suggest Plaintiff may wish to 

proceed with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court will grant him an 

opportunity to amend. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must comply with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff is cautioned that any Amended Complaint will be subject to 

an initial sua sponte screening and that it will be dismissed unless it contains factual matter 

sufficient to plausibly show that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 

Case 3:18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG

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 was violated; and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 

under color of state law. Campbell v. Washington Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 671 F.3d 837, 842 

n.5 (9th Cir. 2011). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits,” 

Plaintiff must plead that each government-official defendant “through the official’s own 

individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (emphasis added).

Finally, because Plaintiff’s initial pleading suggests he may wish to name Judge Shamoon 

as a Defendant, he is hereby cautioned that a judge is absolutely immune for any acts

alleged to have been taken in her judicial capacity. See Meek v. Cty. of Riverside, 183 F.3d 

962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well settled that judges are generally immune from civil 

liability under section 1983.”) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9–10 (1991)).

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-open this case 

if, within forty-five days of this Order, he files an Amended Complaint that conforms with 

Rule 8 and either (1) prepays the civil filing fee or (2) files a Motion to Proceed IFP which 

includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding 

the filing of his Complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b).

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s form 

“Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” and its form 

“Complaint under the Civil Rights Act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” If Plaintiff chooses 

to proceed with a civil rights action, he must title his new pleading as his “Amended 

Complaint,” include Civil Case No. 18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG in its caption, and otherwise 

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) by naming each individual party he wishes to sue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00493-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3