Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03972/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03972-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip W. Henderson
Plaintiff
U.S. District Court
Defendant
Claudia Wilken
Defendant

Document Text:

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

PHILIP W. HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

CLAUDIA WILKEN,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-03972-JSC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 392-97 (1971) (finding implied right of action 

under Constitution against federal government officials), against a federal judge who denied his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed. 

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 must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be 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 only “a short and plain statement of the 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (ECF No. 6.) 

Case 3:16-cv-03972-JSC Document 10 Filed 11/02/16 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 California

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 

state a claim 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, 

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken violated his 

constitutional rights in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Judge Wilken denied 

Petitioner’s petition in 2007 in a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal. See

Henderson v. Newland, No. C 98-4837 (N.D. Cal.) (ECF Nos. 54, 62). Plaintiff refers to Case No. 

“01-3691,”

2 which Judge Wilken closed after determining that it should be filed as a motion for 

reconsideration in Case No. C 98-4837 CW and granted, ordering the respondent to file an answer 

to the habeas corpus petition. C 98-4837 (ECF No. 17). In the instant petition, Petitioner seeks 

injunctive relief, specifically a hearing, a declaration that his federal constitutional rights were 

violated, and an order directing this Court to provide him with “a constitutionally valid 

proceeding.” 

A federal judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in her judicial 

capacity and, unlike the judicial immunity available to state judges, 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). This is because if a federal judge violates a litigant's constitutional rights in a 

 

2

Plaintiff also refers to Case No. 00-0806. That is the number assigned to his case in the Eastern 

District of California before it was transferred here. 

Case 3:16-cv-03972-JSC Document 10 Filed 11/02/16 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 California

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. Plaintiff sues Judge Wilken for acts performed in her judicial capacity, specifically the 

rulings she made in Plaintiff’s case. Judge Wilken is absolutely immune for liability for such acts. 

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter judgment and 

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03972-JSC Document 10 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 3