United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time.
Dkt. # 12. For the reasons below, the Court
DENIES the motion as moot and dismisses the
action without prejudice.
what the Court can ascertain, Plaintiff brings this action
against numerous judicial officers, employees with the
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
(DSHS), and mediator Forrest R. Collins alleging their
conduct resulted in the loss of custody of her child and
related state benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff appears to
contend that Oregon judicial officers and judges improperly
used the law, including issuing fraudulent orders, to take
Plaintiff's child away without proper procedure. Dkt. #
10 at 7, 8. Additionally, Plaintiff appears to allege that
Collins played an improper role in child custody proceedings.
Id. at 8. She further alleges that DSHS improperly
denied her benefits by requiring that she prove that her
child physically resides with her. Id. at 7.
Plaintiff seeks $5, 200, 000 for the various frauds, errors
and mistakes made by Defendants. Id. at 10.
in forma pauperis, Plaintiff's complaint is
subject to sua sponte review and must be dismissed
if it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted” or “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) not
only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in
forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a
claim.”). A complaint fails to state a claim if it
“does not make out a cognizable legal theory or does
not allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal
theory.” Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). The court is
not required to accept as true allegations that are merely
conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
inferences. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ.
Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Clegg
v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.
1994). Accordingly, even as to pro se complaints,
accusation” will not suffice. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
stripping the Complaint of conclusory allegations, the Court
finds there are no cognizable claims against Defendants. For
example, Plaintiff claims that DSHS has improperly denied her
benefits, but the Complaint contains insufficient allegations
to support Plaintiff's entitlement to such benefits. As
for the allegations against various judicial officers,
Plaintiff fails to articulate a legal basis for her claims.
“Judges are immune from suit arising out of their
judicial acts, without regard to the motives with which their
judicial acts are performed, and notwithstanding such acts
may have been performed in excess of jurisdiction, provided
there was not a clear absence of all jurisdiction over the
subject matter.” Sires v. Cole, 320 F.2d 877,
879 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435
U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (explaining that a judge will not be
deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error,
was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority). A
like immunity extends to other government officers whose
duties are related to the judicial process. See Mullis v.
U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390
(9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the clerk of court and
deputy clerks qualify for quasi-judicial immunity unless acts
were done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction);
Agnew v. Moody, 330 F.2d 868, 870 (9th Cir. 1964)
(duties of clerks, bailiffs, and court reporters all relate
to the judicial process). Therefore, allegations where
judicial officers are carrying out duties related to the
judicial process, such as interpreting the law and issuing
orders, fall within the purview of judicial or quasi-judicial
immunity. Id. Finally, the conclusory allegations
that Forrest Collins engaged in a “self-enrichment
scheme” are insufficient to state a cause of action.
reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice.
reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice. The Court
DENIES all pending ...