Opinion
No. C 03-3687 SI (pr)
November 6, 2003
JUDGMENT
The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Rodney Tyrone Smith, an inmate at the Santa Rita County Jail in Dublin, California, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint in which he alleges that (1) the judges presiding over his criminal case are biased, denying him a fair trial, and wrongly denied his motion to dismiss his attorney, and (2) the prosecutors engaged in misconduct in the state criminal case. (The wording of his complaint indicates that the criminal proceedings against him are ongoing.) His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Prose pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins. 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Smith's complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Section 1983 against the judges for ruling against him on his motion to discharge counsel in his criminal case, for denying him a fair trial, and for being racially biased because state judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity.See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The allegations of the complaint indicate that all of the alleged misdeeds were committed by the judges in their judicial capacity. Smith's allegation that a judge "illegally" discussed "attorney/client" matters while off the bench, any claim for a violation of whatever attorney/client privilege could exist under those circumstances would be a state law claim, and should be pursued in state court.
Smith's complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Section 1983 based on his claim that the prosecutors violated his civil rights by denying him discovery. A prosecutor performing an advocate's role is an officer of the court entitled to absolute immunity from a Section 1983 action. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons. 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 413 (1976) (prosecutor absolutely immune from liability for the knowing use of false testimony at trial).
If Smith wishes to challenge his criminal conviction, he may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, Preiser v. Rodriguez. 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), but not until he exhausts state judicial remedies, Cranberry v. Green 481 U.S. 129, 134(1987). To exhaust his state judicial remedies, he must present each of his claims to the California Supreme Court, for example in a direct appeal or by a state petition for writ of habeas corpus.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.