(PS) Conerly et al v. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento et al, No. 2:2020cv00362 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/28/2020 DENYING as MOOT 10 and 15 motions for reconsideration, VACATING the 6/18/2020 status conference hearing currently set before the undersigned , and STAYING all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action pending resolution of these findings and recommendations (F&R). Other than objections to the F&R or non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not e ntertain or respond to any pleadings or motions until the F&R are resolved. It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' 1 Complaint be Dismissed with Prejudice and the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. Referred to Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (York, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARINA CONERLY, et al. 12 Plaintiffs, 13 No. 2:20-cv-362-KJM-KJN PS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ASSOCIATED ORDER v. (ECF No. 1, 10, 15) 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiffs filed this case on February 18, 2020, and paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) 17 18 Three days later, plaintiffs filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 6.) On March 4, the 19 court denied this request, and two days later plaintiffs moved for reconsideration.1 (ECF Nos. 9, 20 10.) The court has reviewed plaintiffs’ request, and finds no good cause for reconsideration. 21 22 More importantly, however, a review of plaintiffs’ allegations and claims asserted demonstrates 23 that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, the undersigned 24 recommends this case be dismissed with prejudice. 25 26 27 28 Additionally, the court’s docket indicates that plaintiffs filed executions of summons on February 21, 2020. On March 12, plaintiffs requested an entry of default, but the Clerk of the Court declined because the executed summons did not “specifically indicate that Defendants were properly served.” (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) Plaintiffs have requested the Clerk reconsider this decision as well. (ECF No. 15.) 1 1 1 Legal Standard 2 A federal Court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 3 jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 4 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 5 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court must, on its own action, dismiss the case if at any time it 6 determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 7 A federal district court generally has original jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a 8 federal question is presented in an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 9 United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy 10 exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 11 However, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over claims where the defendant is 12 absolutely immune from suit. See Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337 13 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are 14 “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise 15 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 16 Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citations and internal quotations omitted); Hagans v. 17 Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974) (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are 18 “essentially fictitious,” “obviously frivolous” or “obviously without merit”); see also Grancare, 19 LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 549–50 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that the 20 “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” standard for dismissing claims operates under Rule 12(b)(1) 21 for lack of federal question jurisdiction) (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th 22 Cir. 1984) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter 23 jurisdiction.”) (abrogated on other grounds)). 24 Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 25 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear 26 that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma 27 pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See 28 Murphy, 745 F.2d at 1230. 2 1 Analysis 2 Plaintiffs raise claims under the U.S. Constitution, for alleged violations of their 1st, 5th, 3 and 14th Amendment rights. The vehicle by which a litigant brings a constitutional claim is 42 4 U.S.C. § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417 (1976) (“Every person who acts 5 under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional right shall be answerable to that 6 person in a suit for damages.”) Plaintiffs allege that three California Superior Court judges were 7 biased against plaintiff Carina Conerlyu in her various disputes with one Sharif Roldan Tarpin. 8 (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) Plaintiffs further allege Tarpin acted in concert with these judges. As a 9 result, the Superior Court judges issued determinations adverse to plaintiffs’ positions. Even 10 treated liberally, the court has no subject matter over plaintiffs’ claims. 11 First, state judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts 12 performed in their judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–55 (1967) (applying 13 judicial immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Judicial immunity constitutes an immunity 14 from suit, not just from an ultimate assessment of damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 15 (1991). A judge is not deprived of immunity because she takes actions which are erroneous, 16 malicious, or in excess of his authority. Meek v. Cnty. of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 17 1999) (“The rationale for granting judges immunity from liability for even intentional and 18 malicious conduct while acting in their judicial capacity is that judges should be free to make 19 controversial decisions and act upon their convictions without fear of personal liability.”). 20 “[J]udicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 21 11. There are two general circumstances where judicial immunity is overcome: (1) where a 22 judge's act is not a judicial action, and (2) when the judge acts in the clear absence of all 23 jurisdiction. Id. at 11-12; see also Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 n. 1 (9th Cir.1997), as 24 amended 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1997). Neither of those circumstances apply here. Because the 25 court has no jurisdiction to hear these claims, they should be dismissed. See Franklin v. State of 26 Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d at 1345 (affirming dismissal of Section 1983 claims where 27 some parties enjoyed absolute immunity from suit due to judicial-process protections). 28 /// 3 1 Further, the undersigned finds the associated “conspiracy” claim as between these 2 Superior Court judges and Tarpin to be conclusory and frivolous on their face. See Dietrich v. 3 John Ascuaga's Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that private individuals are not 4 liable under Section 1983 unless they meet one of four tests, and reminding that “a bare allegation 5 of such joint action will not overcome [dismissal.”) For this additional reason, the court 6 recommends dismissal. See, e.g., Sameer v. Khera, 2018 WL 6338729, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 7 2018) (dismissing as frivolous plaintiff’s conspiracy claims as between her ex-husband and, 8 among others, two state court judges) (appeal dismissed, 2019 WL 7425404 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 9 2019)); Garrett v. Muller, 2012 WL 1682585, at *1 (D. Or. May 11, 2012) (finding the allegation 10 of a conspiracy involving the military, FBI agents, the Catholic Church, public defenders, judges, 11 and the Secretary of Defense to take away plaintiff's child to be frivolous). 12 13 Finally, because no amount of amendment can save plaintiffs’ claims, the court recommends dismissal with prejudice. Murphy, 745 F.2d at 1230. 14 ORDER 15 Because of the court’s findings and recommendations, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 10, 15) are DENIED AS MOOT; 17 2. The status conference before the undersigned, currently set for a June 18, 2020 hearing 18 19 (see ECF No. 5), is VACATED; and 3. All pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of 20 these findings and recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and 21 recommendations or non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not 22 entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions until the findings and recommendations 23 are resolved. 24 25 RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 27 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 1 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 2 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file written 3 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 4 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that 5 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 6 Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: April 28, 2020 10 11 12 cone.362 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.
