Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00729/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00729-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

- 1 - 11cv729

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv729-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MARTIN

STAVEN, AND RICHARD G. CLINE,

Defendants.

On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff Bruce Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint along

with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for appointment of counsel.

Based on the information provided by Thomas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP motion, solely for the purpose of the motions currently before the

Court. 

The Court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP sua sponte and must dismiss

the action if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for

relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Thomas has attached pleadings and court documents showing he is involved in a civil

action in California state court. Dissatisfied with that court’s decision to impose a restraining

Case 3:11-cv-00729-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/14/11 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

27

28

- 2 - 11cv729

order on him, he has filed suit in this Court. Thomas’ theory is that the restraining order,

forbidding him from going near a woman who attends his house of worship, interferes with

his First Amendment rights. He has therefore sued two state court judges for their handling

of his case, including for rulings they made in their judicial capacities. He has also sued the

State of California. He seeks an injunction forbidding the state court from restraining him,

as well as $1.5 million in damages, and “Disciplinary action imposed to the State of

California.” He invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), because his

claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, forbids the Court from granting the

injunctive relief Thomas seeks. With exceptions not applicable here, the State of California

enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity against suits for damages in federal court. Will v.

Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). And furthermore, the state of

California cannot be sued under § 1983. Id. at 65–66 (1989) (“Section 1983 . . . does not

provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged

deprivations of civil liberties.”)

Thomas also cannot maintain an action against either of the judges. State court

judges are absolutely immune from liability for their judicial acts, including suits brought

under § 1983. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978) (“A judge is absolutely

immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the

commission of grave procedural errors.”); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554–55 and n.9

(1967). 

It is not fully clear what action Thomas is asking the Court to take by way of imposing

discipline on the two judges, but it is clear the Court cannot discipline the two judges directly,

and cannot require either the state of California or the California Bar to discipline them. See

Edmonds v. Clarkson, 996 F. Supp. 541, 551 (E.D.Va., 1998) (noting that states, not federal

district courts, retain power to regulate conduct of the state judiciary).

After careful review, the Court finds it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

could not be cured by amendment. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir.

Case 3:11-cv-00729-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/14/11 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

27

28

- 3 - 11cv729

1984). The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00729-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/14/11 Page 3 of 3