Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01867/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01867-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Judge
Defendant
Carlos C. Sanchez
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 14, 2016, Plaintiff Carlos C. Sanchez filed this lawsuit and a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. Nos. 1, 3. 

Plaintiff lists as the only defendant, “Judge, Downtown, CA.” Plaintiff states that the basis 

of jurisdiction is a federal question. Plaintiff then lists “estate, inheritances, properties, land,” but 

does not identify either a federal statute or constitutional provision. Under the “statement of 

claim” section, Plaintiff states, “Try to ask for a court date at times was to difficult just to ask, lift 

the hold on my account so I may continue, also I notice that my safe deposit box in the bank 

empty without permission.” Doc. No. 1. Under the “relief” section, Plaintiff states, “If possible 

my Property or documents has been illegaly been changed. My Land in Kerman if ever been sold 

without permission would be wrong. My 2 houses in Fresno Co. also needs remodeling but are 

not vacant.” Id.

In Forma Pauperis Framework

District courts “may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, 

civil or criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an 

CARLOS C. SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff

v.

FEDERAL JUDGE,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1867 AWI MJS 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DISMISSING MATTER

(Doc. Nos. 1, 3)

Case 1:16-cv-01867-AWI-MJS Document 4 Filed 12/20/16 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

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possess that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A district court “shall dismiss 

the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “A district court may deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 

1115 (9th Cir. 1998); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). 

However, the “denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion unless the 

district court first provides a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds that amendment would 

be futile.” Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015); see Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. 

If a court denies a motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint is frivolous and 

cannot be cured by amendment, then the denial of the motion acts as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e). Rodriguez, 795 F.3d at 1188.

Discussion

Here, there are numerous problems with Plaintiff’s complaint. First, Plaintiff has not 

invoked the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. No federal statute or constitutional provisions 

have been identified.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, the only identifying feature of the 

defendant is that he or she is a judge in California, presumably in downtown Fresno. The conduct 

complained about is difficulty experienced by the Plaintiff in obtaining or setting hearing dates

before the court. See Doc. No. 1 at § III. This conduct clearly relates to a judge’s judicial actions 

or functions, and the conduct would not be done in the absence of all jurisdiction. Thus, the judge 

is entitled to absolute judicial immunity to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2006); Sadoski v. 

Mosely, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 

1996). Third, the Complaint fails to allege any form of illegal or “tortious” conduct by the 

 

1 Diversity is not at issue because the only defendant identified is a judge who sits in California, and Plaintiff appears 

to be a California citizen.

Case 1:16-cv-01867-AWI-MJS Document 4 Filed 12/20/16 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

unknown Fresno judge. Therefore, the Court’s jurisdiction has not been invoked, it appears that 

judicial immunity may apply, and no claims for relief have been stated. 

Given the allegations and defendant listed in the Complaint, the Court concludes that 

Complaint against a Fresno judge in connection with setting hearing dates is without merit and 

that amendment would be futile. Minetti, 152 F.3d at 1115. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed in forma paupers and dismiss the Complaint. See Rodriguez, 795 F.3d at 1188; 

Minetti, 152 F.3d at 1115; Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED;

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Complaint is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01867-AWI-MJS Document 4 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 3