Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03287/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03287-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bamattre-Manoukian
Defendant
George
Defendant
Kenneth Guillebeau
Plaintiff
J. McAdams
Defendant
J. Mihara
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH GUILLEBEAU,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Judge BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN,

Judge J. MIHARA, Judge J. McADAMS,

and Chief Judge GEORGE,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3287 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also requests leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. 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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2).

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff asserts claims against judges of the California Court of Appeal and the Chief

Justice of the California Supreme Court, complaining that they improperly denied his petition

or petitions for a writ of mandate.

///

Case 4:07-cv-03287-PJH Document 5 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff’s claims clearly arise from actions taken by defendants in their judicial

capacity, for which the are absolutely immune from claims for damages. See Pierson v.

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. §

1983). And although judicial immunity does not bar plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim, see

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), section 1983 itself provides that "in any action

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial

capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or

declaratory relief was unavailable." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff does not base his claims on

violation of a declaratory decree, or allege that declaratory relief was not available, so he

has stated a claim for neither injunctive relief nor damages.

Because no amendment could change the fact that plaintiff’s claims are asserted

against defendants for actions taken in their judicial capacity, this case will be dismissed

without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc) (district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to correct

any deficiency in their complaints, unless no amendment could save the complaint).

CONCLUSION

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (document number 4 on the docket) is DENIED as moot. No fee is due. The

clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\GUILLEBEAU287.DSM

Case 4:07-cv-03287-PJH Document 5 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 2