From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Missud v. D.R. Horton Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 2, 2010
No. C 10-235 SI (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010)

Opinion

No. C 10-235 SI.

April 2, 2010


ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE


On April 2, 2010, the Court held a hearing on the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Also on April 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal stating he wishes to dismiss all of his claims without prejudice.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that federal District Judges Armstrong, Benitez, Edenfield and Reidinger violated plaintiff's rights by issuing certain orders, and thus alleges liability based on acts performed by these judges in their capacity as judges. A federal judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in his judicial capacity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996). Therefore, plaintiff's claims against Judges Armstrong, Benitez, Edenfield and Reidinger are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Based on plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Missud v. D.R. Horton Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 2, 2010
No. C 10-235 SI (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010)
Case details for

Missud v. D.R. Horton Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK A. MISSUD, Plaintiff, v. D.R. HORTON INC., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Apr 2, 2010

Citations

No. C 10-235 SI (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010)

Citing Cases

Missud v. S.F. Superior Court

As discussed, Attorney Missud has filed multiple prior lawsuits against judicial defendants, including…