Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01287/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01287-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Samora McIntosh, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael Barth, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1287-PHX-DGC (JCG)

ORDER

Plaintiffs Samora McIntosh, Sheldon McIntosh, Theodore McDowell, Abraheim Kane

and Dwight Rhone, who are confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, have filed

a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The filing fee has been paid.

Defendants Barth, Blomo, Madden and Washington have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#13). The Court will dismiss the action and deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as moot.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

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

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the

allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

Case 2:07-cv-01287-DGC--JCG Document 17 Filed 10/12/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

(en banc). Plaintiffs’ Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend because the

defects cannot be corrected.

II. Complaint

Plaintiffs name the following Defendants in the Complaint: (1) Court Commissioner

Michael Barth, Maricopa County; (2) Court Commissioner Sheila Madden, Maricopa

County; (3) Court Commissioner James Blomo, Maricopa County; (4) Court Commissioner

Eartha Washington, Maricopa County; (5) Avondale Police Department Detective J. Martin;

(6) Avondale Police Department Patrol Sergeant D. Armstrong; (7) Avondale Police

Department Detective A . Bullock; and (8) Avondale Police Department Patrolman R.

Sayles.

Plaintiffs allege seven grounds for relief: (1) Defendant Barth issued an improper

search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) Defendant Barth’s actions violated

Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights; (3) Defendants Madden, Blomo,

and Washington violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process rights;

(4) Defendants Madden, Blomo, and Washington violated Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment right

to be represented by counsel of Plaintiffs’ choice; (5) Defendants Martin, Armstrong,

Bullock, and Sayles’ search of Plaintiffs’ residence violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

rights; (6) Defendants committed the state torts of false arrest and false imprisonment; and

(7) Defendants Martin, Armstrong, Bullock and Salyes committed the state tort of theft of

Plaintiffs’ federal reserve notes. Plaintiffs seek money damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Judicial Immunity

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for their judicial acts

except when they are taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349, 356-357 (1978); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). An

act is “judicial” when it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt

with the judge in his or her judicial capacity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. Maynard,

913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). This immunity attaches even if the judge is accused of

Case 2:07-cv-01287-DGC--JCG Document 17 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

acting maliciously and corruptly, Peirson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967), or of making

grave errors of law or procedure, Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.

1988); see also Ammons v. Baldwin, 705 F.2d 1445, 1446-48 (11th Cir. 1983) (judge entitled

to immunity from a claim that he verbally abused and humiliated plaintiff); Tanner v. Heise,

879 F.2d 572, 577-78 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Regardless of the judge’s status in the judicial hierarchy, a judge has absolute

immunity for acts performed in the judge’s official capacity. O’Neill v. City of Lake

Oswego, 642 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1981) (pro tem municipal judge); Tanner, 879 F.2d at 577-78

(magistrate); Brewer v. Blackwell, 692 F.2d 387, 396 (11th Cir. 1982) (justice of the peace).

Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendants Barth, Madden, Blomo and Washington

relate to their actions taken as judges in Plaintiffs’ criminal proceedings. Defendants are

entitled to absolute immunity. These Defendants, and the claims against them, will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim.

B. Fourth Amendment Claims

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Martin, Armstrong, Bullock, and Sayles conducted

a warrantless search in violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs’ § 1983

Complaint is premature because their convictions have never been reversed, expunged or

otherwise invalidated. The Supreme Court has held:

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of

habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

cognizable under § 1983.

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-7 (1994) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider

whether a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence. Id. If it does, the complaint must be dismissed if the conviction or

sentence has not already been invalidated. 

Case 2:07-cv-01287-DGC--JCG Document 17 Filed 10/12/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

In this case, Plaintiffs state that the search at issue resulted in their arrest for

possession of marijuana. Because Plaintiffs have not yet been convicted, the appropriate

context for challenging the legality of the search is their criminal proceedings. Plaintiffs may

not recover money damages for the illegal search until they show that the charges against

them have been dropped or that any resulting conviction is ultimately reversed, expunged,

or declared invalid. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims must be dismissed.

C. Claims Raised Under Supplemental Jurisdiction

Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court will decline

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will dismiss them without

prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994)

(when federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the court generally should decline

jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice).

IV. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend

The Court will not grant leave to amend because the defects in the Complaint cannot

be cured by amendment. Where amendment would be futile, there is no reason to prolong

litigation by allowing further amendments. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027,

1039 (9th Cir.2002); Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau,

701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir.1983) (futile amendments should not be permitted).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(3) All pending Motions are denied as moot.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01287-DGC--JCG Document 17 Filed 10/12/07 Page 4 of 4