Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02128/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02128-1/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

 In light of these findings and recommendations, the court has not ruled on plaintiff’s 1

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LEE HYDE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2128 MCE DAD P

vs.

GERALD WESTON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, an Idaho state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 . This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with 1

Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff contends that this court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. 

Plaintiff asserts that, if not for his incarceration, he would be a resident of California. Plaintiff

also alleges that his minor daughter, Kristy Lee Brooke, is a plaintiff in this action and resides in

California. Plaintiff names the following defendants: Idaho State Judge Gerald Weston,

Prosecuting Attorney Scott James, Clerk of Court Fredrick Lyons, and private attorney Richard

Case 2:09-cv-02128-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 04/06/10 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

2

Harris who was plaintiff’s appointed counsel. All of the defendants are employed in Idaho, and

presumably reside in Caldwell or Boise, Idaho. 

A civil action based on diversity jurisdiction may be brought only in:

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or

a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is

situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject

to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Because all of the named defendants reside in Idaho, plaintiff’s action is

not properly brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

In addition, the court finds that the complaint is defective. A claim is legally

frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may,

therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Here, the court

finds that plaintiff has named defendants that are either entitled to absolute immunity or are not a

proper defendant for a section 1983 action. The United States Supreme Court has held that

judges acting within the course and scope of their judicial duties are absolutely immune from

liability for damages under § 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). A state

prosecutor also has absolute immunity for initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecutions,

including presentation of case at trial. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). Court

clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity when they perform tasks that are an integral part of

the judicial process. Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Finally, “[a]lthough lawyers are generally licensed by the States, ‘they are not officials of

government by virtue of being lawyers.’” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 319 n.9 (1981). 

An attorney's representation of a client does not constitute action under color of state law which 

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02128-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 04/06/10 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

3

is required for a § 1983 action. Briley v. California, 564 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir.1977). 

Therefore, the court will not transfer this case to the appropriate U.S. District Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a cognizable claim.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: April 5, 2010.

DAD:4

hyde2128.56

Case 2:09-cv-02128-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 3