Cunningham v. Mahoney, No. 3:2010cv01182 - Document 45 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 6/22/10. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2010)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cunningham v. Mahoney Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM, AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 10-01182 JSW v. 12 JUDGE PATRICK J. MAHONEY, et al. 13 Defendants. / 14 15 INTRODUCTION 16 Now before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for 17 Injunctive and Declaratory Relief filed by Defendants Judge Patrick J. Mahoney, Presiding 18 Judge James McBride, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Presiding Justices Anthony Kline, 19 William R. McGuiness, and Justice Laurie E. Zelon. On June 14, 2010, this Court issued an 20 Order vacating the hearing date, because Plaintiff, Archibald Cunningham (“Cunningham”), did 21 not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion and did not file a response to an Order to Show 22 Cause dated June 2, 2010, regarding his failure to file a timely opposition brief. On June 18, 2010, after the Court issued its Order granting Defendants’ motion to 23 24 dismiss and after the Judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to 25 show cause. The Court issues this Amended Order to reflect the fact that it has 26 considered the arguments raised in that response and, for the reasons set forth in the 27 remainder of this Order, finds them unpersuasive. 28 // Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Amended Complaint, on April 21, 2010, Cunningham filed a brief entitled “Plaintiff’s 3 Amended Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Points and 4 Authorities,” and on April 24, 2010 filed an Amended Response to Defendant’s Motion to 5 Dismiss, each of which was directed to Judge Mahoney’s motion to dismiss Cunningham’s 6 original complaint. To the extent the extent Cunningham raised arguments in those briefs that 7 are pertinent to the instant 8 motion to dismiss, the Court has considered them. 9 10 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court Although he did not file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First 12 Accordingly, having considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendants’ motion. BACKGROUND Cunningham brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Civil 13 Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each of Cunningham’s ten claims for relief arise out of custody 14 proceedings between Cunningham and his ex-wife, Defendant Mary Wang. Based on the 15 allegations in Cunningham’s lengthy First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), he alleges that the 16 custody proceedings were conducted by way of a “trial by declaration,” which he argues 17 violated his constitutional right to due process. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 1, 10, 14, 121.) 18 Subsequently, Ms. Wang allegedly instituted contempt proceedings against Cunningham, which 19 ultimately were dismissed. (Id. ¶¶ 28-30, 49, 73.) In addition, Cunningham alleges that Judge 20 Mahoney issued an order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant and imposed monetary 21 sanctions on him, and he contends that Judge Mahoney’s violated a host of his constitutional 22 rights during these proceedings. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32, 33, 84.) 23 Cunningham also alleges that he sought review in the Court of Appeal and the 24 California Supreme Court of these various proceedings and that these Courts have refused to 25 address his arguments on the alleged constitutional violations. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 11.d-e, 25-30, 26 32, 34-35.) In sum, Cunningham asserts that he alleges that his due process rights under the 27 Fourteenth Amendment have been violated since he was never provided with a fully-litigated 28 2 1 and meaningful hearing on the custody issue and that he seeks declaratory relief to that effect, 2 since, in his view, the state courts have avoided the issue. (See, e.g., Docket No. 21 at 4:4-25.) 3 4 Notwithstanding the invocation of Section 1983, Cunningham fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief can be granted because (1) his claims are barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial 6 immunity; and (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction to review state court judgments. 7 A. 8 9 For the Northern District of California 10 United States District Court ANALYSIS Cunningham Fails to State Legally Cognizable Claims Against the Defendants. 1. Cunningham’s Claims Against Judge Mahoney, Presiding Judge McBride, Chief Justice George, and Presiding Justices Kline and McGuiness Fail Because These Defendants Are Entitled to Absolute Judicial Immunity. Section 1983 provides, in pertinent part, that “in any action brought against a judicial 11 officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not 12 be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). Cunningham acknowledges this legal principle, but he argues 14 that he has alleged that these exceptions apply on the basis that he “filed his complaint because 15 the state appellate courts have repeatedly refused to address the issue of whether his 14th 16 Amendment due process rights were violated by the application of the local rule that allowed a 17 ‘trials [sic] by declaration at the May 2nd custody trial.” (See FAC ¶¶ 23-36; Docket No. 21 at 18 3:1-9; Docket No. 24 at 3:1-9.) 19 Judge Mahoney, Presiding Judge McBride, Chief Justice George, and Presiding Justices 20 Kline and McGuiness are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 21 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the act he took 22 was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.”); see also Mireless v. 23 Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). “Judicial 24 immunity applies ‘however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its 25 consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.’” Id. (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 26 193 (1985)). A judge lacks immunity only when he or she acts “in the clear absence of all 27 jurisdiction ... or performs an act that is not ‘judicial’ in nature.” Id. (internal citation omitted). 28 3 1 An act is considered “judicial” when it is a function normally performed by a judge and 2 the parties dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.1 See Stump, 435 U.S. at 362. To 3 determine if an individual acted in an official judicial capacity, a court must analyze whether: 4 “(1) the precise act is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge’s 5 chambers; (3) the controversy centered around a case then pending before the judge; and (4) the 6 events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her 7 official capacity.” Id. (citation omitted). 8 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 Having carefully reviewed the allegations in the FAC, the Court concludes that each of the four factors set forth above demonstrates that Cunningham’s allegations against the Judicial 10 Defendants arise from judicial acts that occurred during the course of the custody, contempt, 11 vexatious litigant, and appellate proceedings.2 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 12 granted on this basis. Notwithstanding Cunningham’s conclusory allegations that Judge 13 Mahoney acted in excess of all jurisdiction, in light of the record in this case, the Court 14 concludes that leave to amend the claims against any of the Judicial Defendants would be 15 futile.3 16 B. Cunnningham’s Claims Fails Because The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Review State Court Judgments. 17 18 19 Cunningham’s claims also fail because this Court lacks jurisdiction to review state court judgments. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that district courts lack jurisdiction to 20 Cunningham filed an opposition to Judge Mahoney’s motion to dismiss the initial complaint and filed an amended opposition to that motion. In those briefs, he states that he does not dispute that some of Judge Mahoney’s custody orders and rulings were made in his “judicial capacity.” (See, e.g., Docket No. 21 at 2:4-5; Docket No. 24 at 3:4-5.) 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cunningham also alleges that Chief Justice George, Presiding Justices Kline and McGuiness, Justice Zelon, and Presiding Judge McBride failed to implement rules and procedures to correct the alleged due process violations that he claims resulted from the “trial by declaration” in the custody dispute. However, Cunningham’s allegations in this regard are no more than bare conclusions unsupported by facts, which is insufficient to state a claim. See Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Accordingly, the claims against these Defendants are dismissed on this basis as well. 2 Ms. Wang, a private party, has not yet appeared, however there are no allegations in the FAC that suggest she was functioning as a state actor. Accordingly, all claims asserted against her are dismissed. 3 28 4 1 review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings. See, e.g., District of 2 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 487-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 3 Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). “The 4 purpose of the doctrine is to protect state judgments from collateral federal attack. Because 5 district courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state court decisions, they must decline 6 jurisdiction whenever they are ‘in essence called upon to review the state court decision.’” Doe 7 & Associates Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n.16). Where “the district court must hold that the state court was 9 wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, the issues presented are inextricably For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 intertwined.” Id. (citations omitted). 11 Notwithstanding Cunningham’s assertion to the contrary, a review of the allegations set 12 forth in the FAC demonstrate that he seeks, in effect, a review of the decisions of the state trial, 13 appellate, and supreme court decisions. Accordingly, dismissal of the claims against the 14 Judicial Defendants is appropriate on this basis as well. 15 16 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court 17 finds that leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH 18 PREJUDICE, a separate judgment shall issue, and the Clerk shall close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: June 22, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM et al, Case Number: CV10-01182 JSW Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 v. 8 PATRICK J. MAHONEY et al, 9 Defendant. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on June 22, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Archibald Cunningham 1489 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94115 Dated: June 22, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
]]>
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.
