Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00958/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00958-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francis Cole
Defendant
Stephen Manley
Defendant
Michael H. Miroyan
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL H. MIROYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN MANLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00958-JCS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against a state judge in 

whose criminal court plaintiff appeared as a defendant, and against his court-appointed 

attorney. After reviewing his allegations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court 

DISMISSES the complaint.1 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that 

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 3.) The magistrate 

judge, then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been 

served or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 

532 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Case 3:16-cv-00958-JCS Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that (1) state court judge Stephen Manley violated his constitutional 

rights by assigning Francis Cole as his attorney, declaring him mentally ill, ordering him to 

take his medications, and disallowing bail; and (2) his court-appointed attorney Francis 

Cole violated his constitutional rights through committing malpractice and having a 

conflict of interest. Neither set of allegations states a claim for relief under § 1983. 

A state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts 

performed in his judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967); 

Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (ruling on a motion and 

exercising control over a courtroom are normal judicial functions, e.g., judge who denied 

disability accommodation to litigant was absolutely immune). “A judge will not be 

deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or in 

Case 3:16-cv-00958-JCS Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the 

„clear absence of all jurisdiction.‟” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) 

(citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351 (1872)); see also Mireles v. Waco, 

502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or 

malice); Sadorski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (mistake alone is not 

sufficient to deprive a judge of absolute immunity). 

The doctrine of judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief in § 1983 

actions. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 

1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). However, § 1983 itself provides that “in any action 

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer‟s judicial 

capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or 

declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Claim 1 is DISMISSED. All of the actions described by plaintiff (denying bail, 

appointing an attorney) are acts performed in Manley‟s judicial capacity and he is 

therefore immune to any claims for money damages, despite plaintiff‟s allegations of bad 

faith and malice. 

Any claims for injunctive relief are also DISMISSED. Plaintiff has not alleged, nor 

is there anything in the complaint to support an inference, that a declaratory decree was 

violated, or that declaratory relief was unavailable. Under these circumstances, Manley is 

immune from claims for injunctive relief. 

Claim 2 is also DISMISSED. Cole, whether a private or a court-appointed attorney 

or a public defender, is not liable under § 1983. Private actors are not liable under § 1983. 

See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Also, a state-appointed defense attorney 

“does not qualify as a state actor when engaged in his general representation of a criminal 

defendant.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321 (1981). Polk County “noted, 

without deciding, that a public defender may act under color of state law while performing 

certain administrative [such as making hiring and firing decisions], and possibly 

investigative, functions.” Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 54 (1992) (citing Polk 

Case 3:16-cv-00958-JCS Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

County, 454 U.S. at 325). Because Cole does not qualify as a state actor under § 1983, 

plaintiff‟s allegations fail to state a claim for relief. 

It appears that plaintiff believes his detention in state custody is unconstitutional. 

If he wishes to pursue a federal challenge to his custody, he may file a federal habeas 

action. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff‟s claims are DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of 

defendants, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00958-JCS Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL H. MIROYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN MANLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00958-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 6, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Michael H. Miroyan ID: ID: ATT211

Elmwood Correctional Facility

701 S Abel Street

Milpitas, CA 95035 

Dated: May 6, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 3:16-cv-00958-JCS Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 5