Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01659/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01659-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ray Dynes
Plaintiff
Fresno Superior Court
Defendant
Gary D. Hoff
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RAY DYNES, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv001659 AWI DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff John Ray Dynes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 19, 2007. 

Pursuant to the Court’s January 24, 2008, order, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint on

February 7, 2008. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a

claim for which relief can be granted and should be dismissed without leave to amend. 

A. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915A(b)(1)-(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v.

Case 1:07-cv-01659-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 02/26/08 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

Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the

light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and

resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Plaintiff’s claims

Plaintiff’s amended complaint names Fresno County Superior Court Judge Gary D. Hoff

as the Defendant and seeks a reduction of all fines imposed that exceed the statutory minimum of

$200, as well as reimbursement “of all other money that has been collected.” Amended

Complaint, at 3. Plaintiff contends that the restitution order violates the Eighth Amendment

because he cannot pay the fine amount. 

Plaintiff attaches an August 21, 2007, order from the Fresno County Superior Court

denying his ex parte motion for reconsideration of fines imposed. The Court denied his motion

because he did not object to the fine at the time of his March 20, 2006, sentencing, nor did he

request a hearing. “Defendant cannot now complaint of the court’s imposition of the restitution

fine.” Order, Aug. 21, 2007, attached to Amended Complaint.

C. Analysis

Plaintiff has named a state court judge as the sole Defendant. It appears that Judge Hoff

signed the August 21, 2007, order denying Plaintiff’s requested relief. 

 Section 1983 only contemplates judicial immunity from suit for injunctive relief for acts

taken in a judicial capacity. The statute provides that “injunctive relief shall not be granted” in

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

capacity ... unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant Hoff violated a declaratory decree. Insofar

as he attaches the August 21, 2007, order, to suggest that declaratory relief was unavailable, his

attempt is unavailing. The order suggests that Plaintiff could have challenged his fine amount at

the time it was imposed or requested a hearing, but did not do so. Indeed, under California Penal

Code section 1202.4, the section under which Plaintiff’s fine was imposed, Plaintiff had the right

to a hearing to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution. 

Case 1:07-cv-01659-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 02/26/08 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

Cal.Pen.Code § 1202.4(f)(1). That Plaintiff did not timely take advantage of state remedies does

not mean that relief was not available. Plaintiff also could have appealed Judge Hoff’s August

21, 2007, order, but did not do so. In other words, Plaintiff has numerous state remedies

available to him. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated sufficient facts to allow an action for injunctive

relief to go forward against Defendant Hoff, a judicial official. Accordingly, the Court

recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s amended complaint

be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W.

Ishii, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with

the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." Plaintiff is 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01659-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 3