Opinion
1:22-cv-00803-KG-SCY
11-29-2022
JOSE ARREDONDO JR., Plaintiff, v. AMANDA CHAVEZ BAKER and ASHLEY SCHNELLER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed October 26, 2022
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Baker, a State District Court Judge, and Defendant Schneller, a State District Court Hearing Officer, violated Plaintiffs due process and other constitutional rights during state-court proceedings. See Complaint at 2-3. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $10 million. See Complaint at 5.
United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiff:
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against State District Judge Baker. “[S]tate court judges are absolutely immune from monetary damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless the actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 Fed.Appx. 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (articulating broad immunity rule that a “judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”).
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against State District Court Hearing Officer Schneller. “[I]mmunity which derives from judicial immunity may extend to persons other than a judge where performance of judicial acts or activity as an official aid of the judge is involved. Absolute judicial immunity has thus been extended to non-judicial officers, like clerks of court, where their duties had an integral relationship with the judicial process.” Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 Fed.Appx. 725, 728 (10th Cir. 2008).Doc. 5 at 2-3, filed October 31, 2022 ("Order"). Judge Yarbrough explained that the Complaint can be dismissed for failure to state a claim, ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. See Order at 3-4. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the November 21, 2022, deadline.
The Court dismisses this case because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the reasons stated by Judge Yarbrough, and because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint that states a claim over which the Court has jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.