Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02553/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02553-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donnell Bledsoe
Plaintiff
Stacy Derman
Defendant
Guiliani
Defendant
Christina Martinez
Defendant
Ronald Northup
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNELL BLEDSOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDGE GUILIANI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02553-TLN-CKD PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 2)

I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is Granted

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable 

to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 

pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2).

///

Case 2:19-cv-02553-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 5
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

II. Recommendation That Plaintiff’s Claims Against All Four Defendants be Dismissed 

Without Leave to Amend

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff names four defendants in his complaint: San Joaquin County Superior Court 

Judges Guiliani and Ronald Northup, District Attorney Stacey Derman, and San Joaquin County 

Public Defender Christina Martinez. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Judge Guiliani was biased 

against him (ECF No. 1 at 3), Judge Northup is liable as a supervisor (ECF No. 1 at 2), that 

District Attorney Stacey Derman “bribed [plaintiff] into taking a strike in exchange for the 

alternative work program” (ECF No. 1 at 2), and that Public Defender Christina Martinez violated 

his constitutional rights (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff further asserts he is entitled to diplomatic 

immunity and that he is immune from prosecution. (ECF No 1 at 2.) Plaintiff attaches several 

exhibits to his complaint related to grievances filed in jail. (See ECF No. 1 at 11-16.) 

Case 2:19-cv-02553-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s claims against all four defendants are vague and conclusory, but even viewing 

the allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff these four defendants are immune from suit 

and should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend.

Regarding plaintiff’s allegations against Judge Guiliani and Judge Northup, “[j]udges are 

immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. . . . 

Judicial immunity applies ‘however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in 

its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.’” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 

(9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199–200 (1985)). A judge can lose 

his or her immunity when acting in clear absence of jurisdiction, but one must distinguish acts 

taken in error or acts that are performed in excess of a judge’s authority (which remain absolutely 

immune) from those acts taken in clear absence of jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12–

13 (1991) (“If judicial immunity means anything, it means that a judge ‘will not be deprived of 

immunity because the action he took was in error . . . or was in excess of his authority’” (quoting 

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978))). Thus, for example, in a case where a judge 

actually ordered the seizure of an individual by means of excessive force, an act clearly outside of 

his legal authority, he remained immune because the order was given in his capacity as a judge 

and not with the clear absence of jurisdiction. Id.; see also Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075 (“A judge 

lacks immunity where he acts in the clear absence of jurisdiction . . . or performs an act that is not 

judicial in nature.”).

Based on plaintiff’s complaint and the documents attached to it, it appears plaintiff seeks 

monetary relief from both state court judges for actions taken within their jurisdiction—handling 

a family court matter and criminal matter both involving defendant. Such actions are 

quintessential examples of judicial acts. Therefore, the defendant judges are immune from this 

suit, “however erroneous the act[s] may have been.” Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075. Plaintiff’s 

proper course of action to redress any alleged erroneous rulings by the defendant judges was to 

address those rulings in state court. In sum, plaintiff’s claims against Judge Guiliani and Judge 

Northup should be dismissed without leave to amend.

Next, plaintiff named defendant District Attorney Stacey Derman. The United States 

Case 2:19-cv-02553-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Supreme Court has held that “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the 

prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 

409, 431 (1976). Such absolute immunity applies “even if it leaves ‘the genuinely wronged 

defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious and dishonest action 

deprives him of liberty.’” Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427). Thus, 

Derman is immune from suit and plaintiff’s claims against her should be dismissed without leave 

to amend. 

Finally, regarding San Joaquin County Public Defender Christina Martinez, “[t]o state a 

claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and 

laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person 

acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted). “[A] 

public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional 

functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 

312, 325 (1981). Because plaintiff’s allegations appear to pertain to Christina Martinez acting in 

her capacity as an attorney during the course of her criminal proceedings, assuming she was 

plaintiff’s assigned public defender, she was not acting under color of state law. This means that 

plaintiff cannot bring a claim against her under § 1983. In fact, there is no claim specifically 

addressing Christina Martinez in plaintiff’s complaint beyond his assertion that she “violated [his] 

constitutional rights.” (See ECF No. 1 at 1.) Furthermore, any potential claims for legal 

malpractice do not come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 

F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff therefore cannot maintain an action against Christina 

Martinez and his claims against her should be dismissed without leave to amend.

III. Leave to Amend Futile

If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court 

has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–

30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the 

defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130–31; see 

also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given 

Case 2:19-cv-02553-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely 

clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citing Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))). However, if, after careful consideration, it is 

clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to 

amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105–06 (affirming dismissal and finding the plaintiff’s “theories of 

liability either fall outside the limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, or 

otherwise are not within the jurisdiction of the federal courts”).

The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, defendants Judge Guiliani, Judge Ronald 

Northup, District Attorney Stacy Derman, and San Joaquin County Public Defender Christina 

Martinez are immune from liability and the complaint does not identify a waiver of immunity. As 

it appears amendment would be futile, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 

as to these four defendants without leave to amend.

IV. Conclusion

It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

Additionally, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: 

Dated: January 23, 2020

16 bledsoe2553.ifp.nolto

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02553-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 5 of 5