“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took 11 was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.”
How later courts described this case
- “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took 11 was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ISABEL VALDEZ VELA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01150-NONE-BAM
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
13 v.
(Doc. 3)
14 JUDGE JULET BOCCANE,
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING
15 Defendant. PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND
16 (Doc. 1)
17
18 Plaintiff Isabel Valdez Vela (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action
19 against Judge Julet Boccane on August 17, 2020. (Doc. 1.) Concurrent with her complaint,
20 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying fees or costs (Long
21 Form). (Doc. 3.)
22 I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
23 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the
24 United States Code section 1915(a). According to her application, Plaintiff is self-employed, and
25 her average monthly income is $1,800.00. (Doc. 3 at 1.) This results in an average annual
26 income of $21,600.00. She has $1.63 in her savings account and no other bank accounts. (Id. at
27 2.) She has a motor vehicle valued at $1,000.00 and no other assets. (Id. at 3.)
28 ///
1 “To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, applicants must demonstrate that
2 because of poverty, they cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves, and any
3 dependents, with the necessities of life.” Soldani v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2019 WL 2160380, at
4 *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019). Many courts look to the federal poverty guidelines set by the United
5 States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a guidepost in evaluating in forma
6 pauperis applications. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 n.5 (11th Cir.
7 2004); Boulas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:18-cv-01163-LJO-BAM, 2018 WL 6615075,
8 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying federal poverty guidelines to in forma pauperis
9 application). For an individual, the present poverty guideline is $12,880.00. See U.S. Federal
10 Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs,
11 available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited May 13, 2021). Plaintiff’s
12 estimated annual income is above this amount. However, Plaintiff estimates her average monthly
13 expenses as $1,833.00 per month, which is above her earned income. Plaintiff avers that she
14 cannot pay the costs of these proceedings because her “income covers for [her] basic needs.
15 Home, Food, Vehicle Health.” (Doc. 3 at 5.)
16 Plaintiff has made the showing required by section 1915(a), and accordingly, the request
17 to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
18 II. Screening Requirement and Standard
19 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma
20 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to
21 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
22 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
23 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
24 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
25 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
26 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
27 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
28 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
1 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
2 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
3 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
4 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
5 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
6 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
7 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
8 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
9 III. Plaintiff’s Allegations
10 Plaintiff brings this action against Judge Julet Boccane, in her official capacity, at the
11 County of Tulare, Juvenile Justice Center. Plaintiff claims a violation of the Fourth Amendment
12 and alleges as follows:
13 She did not do her due diligence to secure my constitutional Rights & those of my
children. She ignored witness statements to support the Allegations of Perjury
14 against Social Workers. Never confirmed there was a warrant.
15 (Doc. 1 at 4.)
16 IV. Discussion
17 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
18 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and
19 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
20 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
21 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
22 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
23 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
24 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are
25 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.
26 Although Plaintiff’s complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of her claims. As a
27 basic matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened. If Plaintiff files an amended
28 complaint, it should be a short and plain statement of her claims and must include factual
1 allegations identifying what happened. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
2 B. Judicial Immunity
3 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to bring suit against a judge based on judicial rulings,
4 she may not do so. Absolute immunity is generally accorded to judges functioning in their
5 official capacities. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004). “Few
6 doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from
7 liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386
8 U.S. 547, 553–54 (1967). Judicial immunity “is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate
9 assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also Stump v. Sparkman,
10 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took
11 was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's
12 claims against the juvenile justice center judge arising from judicial conduct are not cognizable.
13 V. Conclusion and Order
14 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to
15 state a cognizable claim. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will grant Plaintiff an
16 opportunity to amend her complaint to cure these deficiencies to the extent she is able to do so in
17 good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what
19 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal,
20 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to
21 raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations
22 omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated
23 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no
24 “buckshot” complaints).
25 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.
26 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended
27 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.”
28 Local Rule 220.
1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;
3 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a
4 first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or file a
5 notice of voluntary dismissal; and
6 3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the
7 Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order
8 and for failure to state a claim.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11 Dated: May 14, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28