Byrd v. Harper, No. 2:2018cv00479 - Document 15 (W.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 14 Motion/Final Request for Default Judgment, Objection to the Court's June 18, 2019 Order and Findings of Fact or Reparations (construed as a motion for reconsideration). Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Byrd v. Harper Doc. 15 1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 HOUSTON BYRD, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 Case No. 2:18-cv-00479 RAJ v. ORDER HON. JUDGE A. HARPER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 I. 15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Final Request for Default Judgment, 17 Objection to the Court’s June 18, 2019 Order and Findings of Fact or Reparations. Dkt. # 18 14. 19 reconsideration. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Given the context of the motion, the Court construes this as a motion for II. DISCUSSION 20 21 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a 22 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could 23 not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local 24 R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). 25 On June 18, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte. A district 26 court may sua sponte dismiss a pro se complaint filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(d) where the complaint is “frivolous” in that it lacks any arguable basis in law or 28 ORDER – 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 2 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Plaintiff alleged that a King County judge committed perjury and other acts of 4 judicial misconduct in a state court case involving Plaintiff. The Complaint, however, 5 failed to put forth any facts supporting Plaintiff’s allegations and instead quoted numerous 6 statutes and cases concerning fraud on the court. Dkt. # 5 at 9-10. 7 Furthermore, it is settled that “[j]udges are immune from suit arising out of their 8 judicial acts, without regard to the motives with which their judicial acts are performed, 9 and notwithstanding such acts may have been performed in excess of jurisdiction, provided 10 there was not a clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Sires v. Cole, 320 11 F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978) 12 (explaining that a judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was 13 in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority). 14 The Court finds no manifest error in its prior ruling. Nor has Plaintiff submitted 15 any facts or new authority to alter the Court’s conclusion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is 16 DENIED. III. CONCLUSION 17 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. # 14. 19 20 DATED this 14th day of August, 2019. A 21 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
