01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL JOHN JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MUNICIPAL COURT OF

MOUNT VERNON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-0787-JCC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff is a Washington state prisoner who has submitted a pro se civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, along with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Dkt. #1). For the reasons set forth below, the court recommends that the application be denied

and this matter dismissed.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on June 29, 2004, he appeared before the Municipal

Court of Mount Vernon, Washington, to face charges of shoplifting. (Proposed complaint at 3).

Plaintiff further alleges that he was “drunk and high” at the time and, as a result, proceeded to yell

at the presiding judge and courtroom guards. (Id.) Two days later, plaintiff asserts that, “out of

nowhere,” he was charged with harassing a judge and threatening a police officer. (Id.) Plaintiff

names as the sole defendants here two separate courts: the Municipal Court of Mount Vernon,

where the offensive conduct occurred; and the Superior Court of Skagit County, where he was

apparently convicted of charges stemming from the conduct. (Id. at 1, 2). For relief, plaintiff asks

Case 2:05-cv-00787-JCC Document 5 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The other potential barriers to this lawsuit are the rule which bars § 1983 actions if

success would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior criminal conviction, see Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) and the requirement that a prisoner exhaust his

administrative remedies before bringing an action pursuant to § 1983. See Booth v. Churner, 531

U.S. 956 (2001).

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

that this court “dismiss all charges” and award him eight months of SSI compensation, which he

apparently has not received while he has been incarcerated. (Id. at 4).

While plaintiff’s complaint faces many potential obstacles, perhaps the most serious one

is the traditional immunity accorded judges.1

 “[T]he Supreme Court has determined that certain

government officials require absolute immunity from liability in order to enable them to function

independently and effectively, without fear of intimidation or harassment. Accordingly, the Court

has granted absolute immunity to the President, judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and officials

performing quasi-judicial functions, and legislators.” Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 835-36 (9th

Cir. 1991), quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 520 (1985) (internal quotations omitted)

(emphasis added). Even if plaintiff were to allege that the judges in question had acted

“maliciously and corruptly,” such allegations would not be sufficient to strip away judicial

immunity, if the acts complained of were performed in a “judicial capacity.” See Mireles v. Waco,

502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Here, plaintiff has failed to show that the acts complained of were

performed in a non-judicial capacity; thus, he has failed to overcome the bar of judicial immunity.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be

denied because the underlying complaint is barred by judicial immunity. A proposed Order

accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 23rd day of May , 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00787-JCC Document 5 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2