Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00712/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Curtis
Defendant
Anthony Ceaser Lewis
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CEASER LEWIS,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

RICHARD CURTIS, Judge,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-0712 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted 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). 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

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

Case 3:08-cv-00712-WHA Document 4 Filed 02/12/08 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

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 in order 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 1986-87. 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff contends that the defendant state court judge violated his rights when plaintiff

appeared before him on a criminal charge of possession of marijuana. Plaintiff asks for ten

thousand dollars in damages.

A state judge such as the defendant here is absolutely immune from civil liability for

damages for acts performed in his or her judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547,

553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The complaint

therefore is DISMISSED, and because no amendment could remedy the fact that claims such as

this arising from judicial action are barred, the dismissal is without leave to amend. See Adam

v. State of Hawaii, 235 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2001) (futility ground for dismissing without

leave to amend). The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\ORDERS\CR\LEWIS0712.DSM.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-00712-WHA Document 4 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2