The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DBA STEVEN ROBERT JOHNSON Case. No. 6:25-cv-100-MC
DBA SLEX ROBERT HARVEY
DBA KATHRYN ANN HARVEY OPINION & ORDER
DBA ELIZABETH ANN HARVEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Judge Ann L. Aiken,
Case Administrator Lori Errecart,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Pro se plaintiffs seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). This court has discretion
in deciding whether to grant in forma pauperis status. See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616
(9th Cir. 1990). To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both
that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims the litigant seeks to pursue are not
frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617.
Plaintiffs file documents associated with “sovereign citizen” theories.1 Courts have
consistently found such arguments and ideology to be frivolous. Patterson v. Yellen, 2023 WL
8477411 at *2 (D. Or. 2023) (listing cases). More importantly, Plaintiffs attempt to bring claims
against Judge Aiken and a Court Clerk for their actions in two cases—6:24-cv-01162-AA and
6:24-cv-01141-AA— earlier assigned to Judge Aiken. To the extent Plaintiffs attempt to point to
errors made in those cases, the proper avenue is not the filing of a new civil action, but rather an
appeal in those cases to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ attempted
claims here are clearly barred by judicial immunity.
Judicial immunity is a common law doctrine that protects “the finality of judgements”
and “discourage[es] inappropriate collateral attacks . . . by insulating judges from vexatious
actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988)(citing
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347 (1871)). “The common law’s rationale for these decisions—
freeing the judicial process of harassment or intimidation—has been thought to require absolute
immunity even for advocates and witnesses. Id. However, even with this immunity, “judicial
mistakes or wrongs are open to correction through ordinary mechanisms of review,” the
appellate process. Id.
The alleged claims against the named Case Administrator are likewise barred. “‘Court
clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they
perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process’ unless a clerk acts ‘in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction.’” Torres v. Voltz, 2019 WL 3345972 at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting
Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct., Dist. of Nev, 828 F.2d 1358, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987)). “Quasi-
1 Plaintiffs include their fingerprints as signatures, include exhibits purportedly portraying the United States
Constitution on “original parchment paper,” take issue with court filings including their names in capital letters
without Plaintiffs’ consent, and argue Judge Aiken is “an administrator of justice under Admiral Maritime
Jurisdiction.”
judicial immunity extends ‘to court clerks and other non-judicial officers for purely
administrative acts—acts which taken out of context would appear ministerial, but when viewed
in context are actually a part of the judicial function.’” Id. (quoting In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940,
952 (9th Cir. 2002). Such quasi-judicial immunity applies, as alleged here, when the clerk
refuses to file court papers. Id. (citing Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390.)
Because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, Plaintiffs’ applications for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of January, 2025.
_____/s/ Michael McShane ______
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
2 To the extent Plaintiffs brings claims of judicial bias against Judge Aiken, such claims are likewise meritless. Any
claim of “judicial bias must arise from extrajudicial sources.” In re Corey, 892 F.3d 829, 839 (9th Cir. 1989). All of
Plaintiffs’ alleged theories stem from Judge Aiken’s previous dismissal of Plaintiffs’ earlier cases.