Opinion
21-cv-03661-WHO (PR)
09-22-2021
SIMON THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. ANN MOORMAN, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
DKT. NO. 3
WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Simon Thornton alleges Ann Moorman, the California state court judge who presided over his criminal trial, issued a ruling that violated his constitutional rights. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED. State court judges are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for actions performed in their judicial capacity.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 that 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
DISCUSSION
Thornton alleges that state court judge Ann Moorman, who presided over his criminal trial in Mendocino County, issued a ruling during his trial that violated his constitutional rights. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 5 at 2-3.) Such a claim cannot proceed. A state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in his or her judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, this federal civil rights action will be dismissed.
Thornton's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 3.)
CONCLUSION
This federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.