Opinion
3:01-CV-1406-H.
November 15, 2001
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type of Case: This is an unspecified civil action. Parties: Plaintiff presently resides in Euless, Texas. Defendants are United States Magistrate Judges Paul D. Stickney and Jeff Kaplan. The court has not issued process in this case.
Plaintiff does not specify a legal basis for this action. He challenges the rulings issued by the Defendants, two United States Magistrate Judges, on constitutional grounds and claims that they engaged in a "criminal conspiracy." Since the two named Defendants acted under color of federal law at all times relevant to this suit, the court will construe Plaintiff's pro se complaint as asserting a civil rights claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 691 (1971).
Statement of Case: The complaint challenges reports and recommendations filed by the Defendants in Cause Numbers 3:01cv1308-L and 3:01cv670-L on the ground that they are "contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and absolutely contrary to law, which make concealing another person, felonious criminal conduct, an accessory after the fact. . . ." Plaintiff claims that "no one is immune from that law" and that the rulings provide sufficient proof that the Defendants engaged in "a criminal conspiracy." He requests $900,000 in damages and the removal of both magistrate judges from issuing rulings in Plaintiff's pending civil cases.
Findings and Conclusions: The court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is, thus, subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which imposes a screening responsibility on the district court. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) reads in pertinent part as follows:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal — (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief"28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Since the granting of in forma pauperis status in this case, Plaintiff has been barred from filing any further suits in this court without prepayment of the $150 filing fee unless he first seeks leave to file from the District Court. See Taylor v. Lindsay, 3:01cv1510-M (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.); Taylor v. Boyle, 3:01cv1498-L (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.).
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds that the complaint is "frivolous" or that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A complaint is frivolous, if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
Plaintiff's claims against Magistrate Judges Stickney and Kaplan lack an arguable basis in law. "Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from claims for damages arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their judicial discretion." Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1996); Krueger v. Reimer, 66 F.3d 75, 76-77 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). "A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1106, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978);Brandley v. Keeshan, 64 F.3d 196, 200-201 (5th Cir. 1995),cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1129 (1996).
The alleged conduct of Magistrate Judges Stickney and Kaplan occurred in the performance of their judicial functions. All of Plaintiff's claims arise of out of report and recommendations issued in the course of adjudicating lawsuits referred to them by the District Court. The recommendations were clearly within the scope of the magistrate judges' jurisdiction. The fact that Plaintiff accuses the magistrate judges of conspiring does not defeat their entitlement to absolute immunity. See Mitchell v. McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir. 1991); Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 522 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1037 (1985).
Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to have Cause Number 3:01cv1308-L reopened, his claim is likewise frivolous. A new suit is not the proper place to bring a motion for reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 60(b).
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.