United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the
Court's Order to Show Cause, Dkt. #11. Pro Se
Plaintiff Tamara Alisha Battles el has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #9.
The Complaint was posted on the docket on August 14, 2017.
Dkt. #10. Summons has not yet been issued.
brings this action against “Laura Valente,
Administrative Law Judge, Social Security Administrative
Offices of Disability Adjudication and Review.”
Id. Plaintiff accuses Judge Valente of
“erroring in law and fact while abusing discretion when
rendering decision for Claimants [sic] Disability and
Supplemental Insurance application, thus violating any oaths
of office.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges this
Court has jurisdiction “based on the diversity of
citizenship of the parties and the cause of action, ”
and that Judge Valente “waives all implied sovereign
immunity as a [sic] agent for the state and federal agencies
because she committed a crimes [sic] of neglect and
discrimination causing Claimant irreparable harm.”
Id. Plaintiff indicates that the source of her claim
is “an unlawful unfavorable decision” rendered by
Judge Valente on January 27, 2016. Id. Plaintiff
accuses Judge Valente of denying her due process and
discriminating against her “by failing to consider
substantial objective medical evidence on file…”
Id. at 2. Plaintiff demands a “Writ of
Prohibito for injunction immediately restraining and removing
any and ALL agency actor state and federal from any account
held by [Plaintiff], ” as well as a writ of mandamus
and restitution in the amount of “$5, 000, 000.00 Five
Million Dollars to relieve some of the irreparable harm
caused by willful neglect and Discrimination.”
Court notes that this is not a civil action challenging Judge
Valente's decision in accordance with the procedure set
forth in a letter entitled “Notice of Appeals Council
Action” sent to Plaintiff by the Social Security
Administration. See Dkt. #2-2 at 2 (“[t]he
Complaint should name the Commissioner of Social Security as
the defendant…”); see also Dkt. #7
(email from Plaintiff to Court stating “[t]his is a
tort claim against Laura Valente in her personal and
professional capacity…”). However, Plaintiff has
informed the Court that she does have a separate action
reviewing the agency decision at issue in this case,
currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. #12 at 1.
August 17, 2017, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause in
this matter. Dkt. #11. The Court indicated that the Complaint
fails to identify what laws or statues Plaintiff believes
give rise to a claim against Judge Valente personally, that
Judge Valente is almost certainly immune, and that
Plaintiff's claims appear frivolous. Id. The
Court ordered Plaintiff to respond with a short and plain
statement telling the Court (1) the laws upon which her
claims are based, (2) how Defendant is not immune from suit,
and (3) why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous.
September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response. Dkt. #12.
Plaintiff's Response is divided into sections responding
to each of the three topics above. For “laws upon which
her claims are based, ” Plaintiff includes, inter
alia, the following statutes in list form: 18 U.S.C.
§241-242; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; 18
U.S.C. §2255; 18 U.S.C. § 287; 18 U.S.C. §
152; 18 U.S.C. §1593; 18 U.S.C. §3571; 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001; 42 U.S.C. § 3795a. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff appears to argue that Defendant withheld her
personal property thus causing irreparable harm under §
1983. Id. For “how Defendant is not immune
from suit, ” Plaintiff cites to several irrelevant
areas of law, including accusing Defendant of engaging in an
“economic war” in violation of international law,
violating a fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff under
Defendant's oath of office, violating the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by depriving her of
security from government invasion, and engaging in civil
conspiracy. Id. at 3. Plaintiff accuses Defendant of
engaging in “willful” conduct based on a history
of rendering “unfavorable decisions errored in
law.” Plaintiff's citation to law and quotes from
cases lack analysis or a clear connection to the facts of
this case. Where Plaintiff does discuss this case, she
generally accuses Defendant of engaging in error by means of
her judicial actions, e.g. Plaintiff accuses
Defendant of conducting an adversarial proceeding in
violation of 20 CFR 405.1(c). Id. at 4.
Plaintiff's response to “why this case should not
be dismissed as frivolous” is to provide generally
out-of-context quotes from cases, e.g.
“[s]ilence can only be equated with fraud where there
is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where and [sic] inquiry
left unanswered would be intentionally misleading… We
cannot condone this shocking behavior… This sort of
deception will not be tolerated an [sic] if this routine is
[sic] should be corrected immediately.” Id. at
6 (citing U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300).
Tweel was a criminal case where the Defendant was
charged with tax evasion and the Court criticized the
deceptive behavior of the IRS agents involved. See
550 F.2d at 299-300.
Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action
fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
Court has reviewed the record and Plaintiff's Response
and finds that this suit is based on Judge Valente's
judicial actions, for which she is immune. See Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); Hirsh v. Justices
of the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“Administrative law judges and agency prosecuting
attorneys are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity so long as
they perform functions similar to judges and prosecutors in a
setting like that of a court.”). Plaintiff's
allegation that Judge Valente has waived immunity by
committing “crimes” of neglect and discrimination
is unsupported by law or fact. Plaintiff's request for $5
million is frivolous. Given all of this, dismissal is
therefore warranted. See 28 U.S.C. §
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1) Plaintiff's claims are ...