Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02022/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02022-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Goodman
Defendant
Lonzell Green
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONZELL GREEN, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

HONORABLE LARRY GOODMAN,

JUDGE, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2022 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE

CLERK

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at California

State Prison-Sacramento, has filed a civil rights complaint against Alameda County

Superior Court Judge Goodman, who presided over a habeas corpus petition filed there

by Plaintiff. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Superior Court Judge Goodman issued an

order to show cause based on Plaintiff's allegations in his petition that a witness against

him at his criminal trial had recanted his testimony from Plaintiff's trial and had provided

a declaration that he did so based on the district attorney's offer to reduce charges against

him in another case. Plaintiff further alleges that after Judge Goodman issued an order to

show cause on his habeas petition, the district attorney obtained another declaration from

the witness, stating that he had only recanted the testimony and provided the declaration

to Plaintiff due to threats from Plaintiff's family. Judge Goodman later denied the habeas

petition after reviewing the record as a whole and Plaintiff has provided this Court with

Case 3:07-cv-02022-TEH Document 3 Filed 04/18/07 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

copies of the relevant documents and Judge Goodman's decision. Plaintiff complains

that Defendant Goodman's use of judicial power with regard to the state habeas petition

resulted in an obstruction of justice. 

 ANALYSIS

I 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, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

II Legal Claims

Plaintiff's complaint against Judge Goodman fails to state a claim for relief, as

Judge Goodman is absolutely immune from suit based on the doctrine of judicial

immunity. A state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts

performed in his judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967)

(applying judicial immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Judicial immunity is an

immunity from suit for damages, not just from an ultimate assessment of damages. See

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). Whether an act by a judge is a judicial

one relates to (1) the nature and function of the act and not the act itself, i.e., whether it is

a function normally performed by a judge, and to (2) the expectations of the parties, i.e.,

whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.

349, 362 (1978); see, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991) (judge's direction

to court officers to forcibly bring person before him is function normally performed by

judge and taken in aid of judge's jurisdiction over matter before him); Simmons v.

Case 3:07-cv-02022-TEH Document 3 Filed 04/18/07 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

Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (judge

absolutely immune for entering default judgment against prisoner who was not permitted

to attend civil trial because entry of default judgment in a pending civil case is

unquestionably a judicial act). Other factors in determining whether a particular act is

judicial include whether: (1) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers, (2) the

controversy centered around a case then pending before the judge, and (3) whether the

events arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her

official capacity. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Ruling on a motion and exercising control over a courtroom are normal judicial

functions. Id. (judge who denied disability accommodation to litigant was absolutely

immune). As such, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Clerk of Court shall

enter judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 04/17/07 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02022-TEH Document 3 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3