Summary
affirming dismissal of a prisoner's request for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state judge as frivolous because “the federal courts have no authority to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties”
Summary of this case from Darville v. VerdigetsOpinion
No. 06-30255 Conference Calendar.
April 17, 2007.
Darrell Johnson, Angola, LA, pro se.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, USDC No. 2:05-CV-6647.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Darrell Johnson, Louisiana prisoner # 114419, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Johnson's motion to appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP, Johnson is challenging the district court's certification. See Bough v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Johnson argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit because Judge Bigelow is not judicially immune from claims for equitable relief and for attorney's fees. He also argues that federal courts, via § 1983, may address unconstitutional actions taken by state courts by awarding injunctive relief.
Johnson is correct that judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive or declaratory relief in civil rights actions. See Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 525 (5th Cir. 1985). The dismissal of his claims for such relief was nevertheless appropriate as the federal courts have no authority to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). Johnson's request for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which allows a district court, in its discretion, to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party in a § 1983 action, was also properly dismissed as Johnson did not prevail in his § 1983 suit. See § 1988.
As Johnson has not shown that the district court's dismissal of his appeal was incorrect, his request for IFP is denied and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court's dismissal of his § 1983 suit and this court's dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.