Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01188/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01188-0/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LEONARD JOHNSON,

CDCR #AR-2179 Civil

No. 

14cv1188 LAB (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

AND

(2) DISMISSING ACTION FOR

SEEKING MONETARY DAMAGES

AGAINST DEFENDANTS WHO ARE

IMMUNE AND FOR FAILING TO

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

RICHARD WHITNEY;

BONNIE DUMANIS, 

Defendants.

David Leonard Johnson (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currentlyhoused at High Desert State

Prison located in Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) 

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

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

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\14cv1188-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 1 14cv1188 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-01188-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 06/10/14 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

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is

granted leave to proceed IFP 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).

Prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in

installments, regardless of whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D.CAL.CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that

he has insufficient funds from which to pay an initial partial filing fee.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] and

assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the Court further

orders the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to garnish the entire $350

balance of the filing fees owed in this case, collect and forward them to the Clerk of the Court

pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also

obligate the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like

Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof,

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who

are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 n.1 (9th Cir.

2000) (§ 1915A).

/ / /

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\14cv1188-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 2 14cv1188 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-01188-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 06/10/14 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

Here, Plaintiff seeks money damages for “false imprisonment” from San Diego District

Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. (See Compl. at 15.) Criminal prosecutors are absolutely immune

from civil damages suits premised upon acts committed within the scope of their official duties

which are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v.

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272-73

(1993); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 487-93 (1991). A prosecutor is immune even when the

prosecutor’s malicious or dishonest action deprived the defendant of his or her liberty. 

Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075. 

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking money damages based on rulings made

by San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard Whitney, this Defendant is absolutely immune. 

“Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune fromdamage liability

for acts performed in their official capacities.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.

1986). Therefore, as a Superior Court Judge for the State of California, this Defendant has

absolute immunityfromcivil proceedings relating to these actions, which were performed within

their judicial discretion. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against both Defendants are dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) for seeking monetaryrelief against defendants who are immune

from such relief.

Plaintiff is also challenging the rulings made by Superior Court Judge Whitney in his

criminal proceedings. However, this is not a viable § 1983 claim. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine

provides that “‘a losing party in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be

appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court, based on the losing

party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.’” Doe v. Mann, 415

F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994)),

cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 868 (1999); see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462, 476 & 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). 

Review of state court decisions may only be conducted in the United States Supreme

Court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476 & 486; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416; see 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The

Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar applies even if the complaint raises federal constitutional

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\14cv1188-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 3 14cv1188 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-01188-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 06/10/14 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

issues. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n.16 & 486; Henrichs v. Valley View Development, 474 F.3d

609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007). More specifically, the bar applies if the challenge to the state court

decision is brought as a § 1983 civil rights action alleging violations of due process and equal

protection. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995); Worldwide Church of God

v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.4 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A complaint challenges a state court decision if the constitutional claims presented to the

district court are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision in a judicial

proceeding. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n.16. “[T]he federal claimis inextricablyintertwined with

the state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court

wrongly decided the issues before it.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25

(1987)(Marshall, J., concurring); see also Worldwide Church of God, 805 F.2d at 891-92.

Because Plaintiff appears to seek this Court’s assistance in overturning orders made by

a San Diego Superior Court Judge, his claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court

proceedings, and are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

If Plaintiff is currently in the process of facing criminal charges and requests that this

Court intervene in the state court’s decisions, the Court declines to do so. A federal court cannot

interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive relief absent a showing

of the state’s bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is “flagrantly and

patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46,

53-54 (1971). 

Younger abstention is appropriate if four criteria are met: (1) state judicial proceedings

are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate an important state interest; and (3) the state

proceedings offer an adequate opportunity to litigate federal questions; and (4) the federal court

action would “enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere

with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber

of Commerce PAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, based on

Plaintiff’s allegations that he has ongoing criminal proceedings in state court and requests this

Court’s intervention, abstention pursuant to the Younger doctrine is warranted. 

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\14cv1188-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 4 14cv1188 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-01188-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 06/10/14 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

For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed sua

sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for seeking monetary

damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). See

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2) is

GRANTED. 

2. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or

his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee

owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER

ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Jeffrey Beard,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502,

Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary damages against an immune

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A(b).

5. Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed

in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted

above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his

original Complaint. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not realleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

/ / /

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\14cv1188-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 5 14cv1188 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-01188-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 06/10/14 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

567 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within 45 days, this action

shall remain dismissed without further Order by the Court.

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of a Court approved § 1983

civil rights complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 10, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\14cv1188-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 6 14cv1188 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-01188-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 6 of 6