Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180313_0000574.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:54:49+00:00

Document:
STEPHEN D. KELLEY, in his individual and official capacities, Defendant.
Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a Complaint, as amended, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain events occurring in Glynn County, Georgia. (Docs. 1, 6.) Plaintiff also filed Motions for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 2, 7.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions. For these same reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint based on his failure to state a claim, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 Fed.Appx. 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains “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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not” suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).
Judicial immunity bars Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Kelley. Congress did not abrogate the doctrine of judicial immunity when it enacted Section 1983. Judicial immunity is an absolute immunity, and it applies even when a judge acts maliciously. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (holding judicial immunity doctrine applies in Section 1983 actions). Absolute immunity not only protects against liability but also against a case going to trial at all. Harris v. Deveaux, 780 F.2d 911, 914 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). To determine whether a judge is entitled to absolute immunity from money damages under Section 1983, a two-part test was established in Stump: 1) whether the judge dealt with the plaintiff in a judicial capacity; and 2) whether the judge acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Stump, 435 U.S. at 357). The second prong of this test is “only satisfied if a judge completely lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 916.
Plaintiff complains about the actions of Defendant Kelley in his capacity as a judicial official in a case pending before him in which Plaintiff was a named party. Nevertheless, Plaintiff fails to make a plausible claim that Defendant Kelley acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction, despite his bare assertions to the contrary. Consequently, the Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Defendant Kelley based on judicial immunity principles.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.