Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00581/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00581-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONDALEE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUCY H. KOH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00581-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Condalee Morris, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court will identify any cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, 

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings are liberally 

construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

Case 3:16-cv-00581-JD Document 10 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

omitted). A complaint must state “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

Morris seeks monetary and declaratory relief because a District Judge in this Court denied 

his motions for default judgment in another case. A federal judge is absolutely immune from civil 

liability for acts performed in his judicial capacity and, unlike the judicial immunity available to 

state judges sued under § 1983, a federal judge’s immunity is not limited to immunity from 

damages, but extends to actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. See Moore 

v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996); Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 

1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying judicial immunity to actions under Bivens). If a federal judge 

violates a litigant’s constitutional rights in a proceeding pending in federal court, Congress has 

provided carefully structured procedures for taking appeals and for petitioning for extraordinary 

writs in Title 28 of the United States Code. See id.

Absolute immunity “is not reserved solely for judges, but extends to nonjudicial officers 

for all claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions.” Burton v. Infinity Capital 

Management, 753 F.3d 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Courts “take a functional approach to whether a nonjudicial officer is entitled to absolute quasijudicial immunity by looking to ‘the nature of the function performed and not to the identity of the 

actor performing it.’” Id. at 960 (quoting Curry v. Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

“To qualify for absolute immunity, the function performed must be a judicial act with ‘a 

sufficiently close nexus to the adjudicative process.’” Id. (quoting Castillo, 297 F.3d at 948). “[I]t 

Case 3:16-cv-00581-JD Document 10 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

is only when the judgment of an official other than a judge involves the exercise of discretionary 

judgment that judicial immunity may be extended to that nonjudicial officer.” Castillo, 297 F.3d 

at 949. To be protected, the function must “involve the exercise of discretion in resolving 

disputes.” Id. at 948. 

Morris alleges that Judge Lucy Koh denied several of his motions for default judgment in 

another case, Morris v. Sandoval, Case No. 12-cv-6132-JD, that was previously assigned to Judge 

Koh.1 He also alleges that the former Clerk of Court erred in sending out waivers of service of 

summons’ to defendants. Morris says that defendants filed their answers late, and so default 

judgment should have been entered and he should have received money damages. Morris seeks 

monetary damages of $14.4 billion against the City of San Jose, the defendant from the other case.

Morris is not entitled to relief because defendants are entitled to immunity for these acts 

performed in their judicial capacities and functions. Judge Koh is also immune from Morris’ 

challenges to her other rulings in the case. Morris has also named as a defendant, a defense 

attorney employed by the California State Attorney General’s Office. It is difficult to ascertain the 

exact nature of the allegations against this defendant other than the attorney opposed Morris’ 

motions. This fails to state a claim for relief. Because no amount of amendment would cure the 

deficiencies in this complaint which is frivolous and fails to state claim, it is dismissed with 

prejudice.

CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

 

1

This case continues as counsel was recently appointed for Morris and a second settlement 

conference is pending.

Case 3:16-cv-00581-JD Document 10 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONDALEE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUCY H. KOH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00581-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 29, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Condalee Morris ID: V96203

CSP-Sacramento

P.O. Box 290060

Represa, CA 95671 

Dated: April 29, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:16-cv-00581-JD Document 10 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4