Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03050/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03050-0/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.

LARRY GOODMAN, JUDGE, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-3050 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE

CLERK

(Docket Nos. 2, 4) 

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

Valley State Prison, in Delano, California, has filed a civil rights complaint against

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Goodman, who presided over a habeas corpus

petition filed there by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed two applications to proceed in forma

pauperis, which are granted in a separate order filed simultaneously. Plaintiff’s

complaint asserts the same cause of action that he raised in a prior case before this Court:

C 07-2022 TEH (PR) which was dismissed based on Defendant’s immunity from suit.

Therefore, the instant case is DISMISSED as duplicative of Plaintiff’s earlier filed

complaint. 

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

Case 3:07-cv-03050-TEH Document 7 Filed 11/28/07 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

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 again changing his testimony. Judge Goodman later denied the habeas

petition after refusing to call the witness a hostile witness and Plaintiff complains that 

Judge Goodman was “acting as an accomplice to the Oakland Raiders” in denying his

petition. 

 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

A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be

dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). This

action is duplicative of an earlier complaint filed in this Court that was previously

dismissed based on judicial immunity and is therefore DISMISSED. As long as the

judge has jurisdiction to perform the “general act” in question, he or she is immune

however erroneous the act may have been, however injurious the consequences of the act

may have been, and irrespective of the judge’s claimed motivation. See Harvey v.

Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000). As such, Plaintiff's complaint is

Case 3:07-cv-03050-TEH Document 7 Filed 11/28/07 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

dismissed as duplicative and 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: 11/28/07 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03050-TEH Document 7 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 3