Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05483/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05483-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

EDWARD VINCENT RAY, JR.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 16-05483 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Honorable Judge Yvonne G. Rogers. Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be addressed in a separate order. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any 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 

Case 5:16-cv-05483-EJD Document 6 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff is challenging Judge Rogers’ dismissal of a prior § 1983 complaint as 

untimely and for failing to afford him equitable tolling under state law. (Compl. at 3.) 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and requests an order directing “Judge Rogers to reexamine her ruling while referring to the California Equitable Tolling Cases and/or that 

States Equitable Tolling Doctrines and its leading cases on that subject [sic].” (Id.) 

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), cert. denied, 486 

U.S. 1040 (1988). This is because 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. Here, Plaintiff may not circumvent the appeals process by 

filing a civil action against Judge Rogers in order to obtain the relief he seeks. 

Accordingly, this action must be dismissed because Judge Rogers is entitled to immunity 

for her actions performed in her judicial capacity. See Moore, 96 F.3d at 1243. 

/// 

/// 

Case 5:16-cv-05483-EJD Document 6 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 3
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 Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\05483Ray_dism 

1/17/2017

Case 5:16-cv-05483-EJD Document 6 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 3