Williams v. U.S.D.C. Court Clerks, No. 1:2018cv00071 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 1 Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED Without Leave to Amend and This Action be Closed signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/24/2018. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AHKEEM DESHAVIER WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:18-cv-00071-LJO-SAB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND v. U.S.D.C. COURT CLERKS, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff Ahkeem Deshavier Williams, proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the 20 Court is the complaint which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 I. 23 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 24 Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court 25 determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 26 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 28 (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); 1 1 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 2 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 3 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis 4 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) 5 (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court exercises its discretion to 6 screen the plaintiff’s complaint in this action to determine if it “i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 7 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 8 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 9 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same 10 pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a 11 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. 12 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 13 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 15 544, 555 (2007)). 16 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 17 accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 18 94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, 19 a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 20 complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 21 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 22 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore the complaint must contain sufficient 23 factual content for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 25 II. 26 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 27 The basis of Plaintiff’s complaint is the clerks of the court did not file his complaint 28 causing two of his cases, No. 1:17-cv-00816-DAD-BAM and 1:17-cv-00860-LJO-MJS to be 2 1 dismissed. (Compl. 5, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges the clerks are tampering with and 2 mishandling his mail to manipulate the court proceedings. (Compl. 7.) While Plaintiff was housed at Kings County Jail, he filed a civil rights complaint, no. 3 4 1:17-cv-00816-DAD-BAM, which was mailed on June 16, 2017. (Compl. 7.) When Plaintiff 5 was released from jail he went to the District Court to change his address and check on the status 6 of his case. (Compl. 7.) The Clerks told Plaintiff they had never received it. (Compl. 7.) 7 Plaintiff is now going almost daily to trace the mail. (Compl. 7.) Plaintiff filed a new case 8 against the same individuals on June 28, 2017, no. 1:17-cv-00860-LJO-MJS. (Compl. 7.) On 9 July 5, 2017, Plaintiff went to the Hanford post office to get a tracking report which shows that 10 C. Marrujo signed for the mail. (Compl. 7.) Plaintiff contends that the tracking report shows 11 that the federal court received his case no 1:17-cv-00860-LJO-MJS and he can prove that the 12 Clerk’s Office committed perjury, misled him, and mishandled the court proceedings. (Compl. 13 8.) Plaintiff alleges that the Clerk’s Office was docketing certain mail that they wanted Plaintiff 14 to have. (Compl. 8.) Most of Plaintiff’s mail does not have stamps so he has been walking it in. 15 (Compl. 8.) Plaintiff was at the post office on July 5, 2017 looking for his mail and on October 10, 16 17 2017, Judge McAuliffe signed a findings and recommendations recommending dismissing case 18 no. 1:17-cv-00816-DAD-BAM for failure to prosecute.1 (Compl. 9.) Plaintiff seeks to have case 19 no. 1:17-cv-00816-DAD-BAM reinstated and go to trial. (Compl. 9.) 20 III. 21 DISCUSSION “Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights 22 23 violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis v. 24 U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987); Fixel v. United 25 States, 737 F.Supp. 593, 597 (D. Nev. 1990), aff’d sub nom. Fixel v. U.S. Dist. Court of Nevada, 26 930 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1991). Clerk action that is “a mistake or an act in excess of jurisdiction 27 28 1 The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s federal cases filed in this Court. 3 1 does not abrogate judicial immunity, even if it results in ‘grave procedural errors.’ ” Mullis, 828 2 F.2d at 1390 (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978)). In Mullis, a bankruptcy 3 debtor filed an action against the bankruptcy court clerks. Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390. The 4 plaintiff alleged denial to access of the court after the court clerks refused to accept and file an 5 amended petition in his bankruptcy action. Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390. The court found that the 6 clerk of court and deputy clerks are the court officials through whom filing in cases is done. Id. 7 “Consequently, the clerks qualify for quasi-judicial immunity unless these acts were done in the 8 clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. 9 Plaintiff alleges that his complaint mailed June 17, 2017 was not received. However, 10 review of the docket in Williams v. Jordan, 1:17-cv-00816-DAD-BAM, shows that the 11 complaint was received and filed on June 19, 2017. While a findings and recommendations was 12 filed in the action recommending dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, this was the 13 result of Plaintiff’s name being incorrectly entered on the docket. See Williams v. Jordan, 1:1714 cv-00816-DAD-BAM (Jan. 11, 2018). This was corrected on January 11, 2018, and the findings 15 and recommendations was vacated. (Id.) Williams v. Jordan, 1:17-cv-00816-DAD-BAM, has 16 not been dismissed and therefore, the relief Plaintiff seeks, to have the case reinstated is moot. 17 The action Plaintiff seeks to have reinstated is currently proceeding and the complaint is pending 18 screening. 19 To the extent that Plaintiff is also attempting to allege that the Clerk’s Office interfered 20 with mail in the second case that he filed, Williams v. Jordan, 1:17-cv-00816-LJO-MJS, review 21 of the docket in the action reveals that the complaint was filed on June 28, 2017. Plaintiff filed a 22 first amended complaint on August 1, 2018. On September 11, 2017, findings and 23 recommendations were filed which recommending dismissing the first amended complaint 24 without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed objections on August 19, 2017. On January 4, 2018 the 25 district judge adopted the findings and recommendations and Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on 26 January 11, 2018. 27 Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint in this action be dismissed 28 without leave to amend as the Clerk of the Court is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for 4 1 damages and the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks in this action is moot. 2 IV. 3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Court finds that this action should be dismissed because the Clerks of the Court are 4 5 entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for damages for the actions taken which are integral to the 6 judicial process and the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks in this action is moot. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed 7 8 without leave to amend and this action be closed. This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 9 10 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 11 (14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings 12 and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 14 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 15 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 16 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 17 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 24, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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.