Reinhardt v. Beck et al
Filing
2
ORDER DISMISSING Complaint With Prejudice (Docket No. 1 ), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/24/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Fahrney, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVE REINHARDT,
12
13
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01015-OWW-SKO
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE
v.
14
DENNIS L. BECK, et al.,
(Docket No. 1)
15
16
Defendants.
/
17
18
I.
INTRODUCTION
19
On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff Dave Reinhardt filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to
20
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
21
(1971). In his complaint, Plaintiff names United States District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, United
22
States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck, and the United States District Court, Eastern District of
23
California as defendants. Plaintiff asserts that Judges O'Neill and Beck abused their discretion in
24
decisions the Court issued in Plaintiff's habeas corpus proceeding (1:08-cv-00329-LJO-DLB HC),
25
thereby violating Plaintiff's due process rights under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments.
26
II.
DISCUSSION
27
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an aggrieved party must sufficiently allege
28
that he or she was injured by "the deprivation of any [of his or her] rights, privileges, or immunities
1
secured the [United States] Constitution and laws" by a "person" acting "under color of state law."
2
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3
Federal government actors, such as federal judges, are not acting under the color of state law,
4
and a Section 1983 suit is not viable against them. Morse v. N. Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d
5
1338, 1343 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding the plaintiff's complaint "invalid on its face in its reliance upon
6
Section 1983 as a cause of action against alleged federal government actors"). Moreover, the United
7
States District Court is not a "person" and is not a proper defendant under Section 1983. Plaintiff
8
does not state a cognizable claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9
A plaintiff alleging a constitutional violation by a federal actor has a right of action under
10
Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397. Pursuant to Bivens, a plaintiff may sue a federal officer in his or her
11
individual capacity for damages for violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. See id. To the
12
extent Plaintiff is attempting to state a claim under Bivens, all claims for damages against judges in
13
their individual capacities are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman,
14
435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). Therefore, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable Bivens claim against
15
District Judge O'Neill or Magistrate Judge Beck. As to the defendant "United States District Court,
16
Eastern District of California" no Bivens action lies against it. See generally FDIC v. Meyer,
17
510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994) (Bivens claim is an action against individual federal actors and is not
18
available against a federal agency). For these reasons, Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable Bivens
19
claim against the Defendants named; any attempt to amend would be futile. See Foman v. Davis,
20
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (where pleadings cannot possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts,
21
amendment is futile, and the claim may be dismissed with prejudice).
22
III. CONCLUSION
23
Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court
is directed to administratively close this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
June 24, 2011
emm0d6
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
