Speidel

1

2 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

DAVID DOUGLAS SPEIDEL, Case No. 2:25-cv-00667-RAJ

11

Plaintiff, ORDER

12

v.

13

DILLON PACKARD, TERRANCE

14 CLIFFORD, JOSHUA SHOLTEN,

DELMAS FERRELL, TYLER

15 HATCHER, CHAD PLEADWELL,

CRYSTAL CHAPPELL,

16 REBECCA WELCH, JULIE

WALTERS, LEAH OTT, DAVE

17 FLOYD, MATT MILLER, DARCY

SWETNAM, RYAN WALTERS,

18 CHRISTINE CLELAND-

MCGRATH, TJ FANTINI,

19 AMANDA HUBIK, BRUCE

MCDOUGALL, CAROLYN

20 MOULTON, ANTHONY YOUNG,

SARAH HAYNE, PATRICK

21 EASON, PAUL NIELSEN,

TIFFANY AMBROSE, and JAY

22 DEE WAGNER,

23 Defendants.

24

25

26

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the City Defendants’ motion to

3 dismiss, Dkt. # 29, the Judicial Officers’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 30, and Plaintiff David

4 Speidel’s motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. # 36. The Court has reviewed the motions, the

5 submissions in support of and in opposition to the motions, and the balance of the record.

6 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Mr. Speidel’s motion to appoint

7 counsel. The Court GRANTS the City Defendants’ and Judicial Officers’ motions to

8 dismiss. In addition, the Court, sua sponte, DISMISSES the claims against Defendant

9 Jay Dee Wagner.

10 II. BACKGROUND

11 Plaintiff David Speidel, proceeding pro se, alleges that 25 defendants engaged in

12 a vast conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights. The defendants can be categorized

13 into three groups: (1) the “City Defendants,” comprised of Anacortes police officers,

14 public defenders, prosecutors, court staff, city officials, and a city claims adjuster; (2) the

15 “Judicial Officers,” comprised of Judge Nielsen, Commissioner Eason, and

16 Commissioner Hayne; and (3) Jay Dee Wagner, an unrepresented individual. For the

17 reasons discussed below, the Court finds Mr. Speidel’s claims against Commissioners

18 Eason and Hayne are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that he fails to state a

19 claim against the remaining defendants.

20 A. Allegations Against Wagner and the City Defendants

21 On February 27, 2024, Wagner reported that Mr. Speidel was operating a

22 motorcycle without proper registration. Dkt. # 1 at 14, 15. At approximately 9:05 p.m.,

23 Officer Packard from the Anacortes Police Department was dispatched to investigate the

24 complaint, and upon arriving at the scene, observed Mr. Speidel dismount a motorcycle

25 and enter a nearby apartment. Id. at 15. Officer Packard attempted to speak with Mr.

26

1 Speidel, but Mr. Spediel refused. Id. At some point, Sergeant Clifford joined Officer

2 Packard. Id. Mr. Speidel alleges that together, the two officers “engaged in unlawful

3 and coercive behavior, including persistent knocking, attempting to coerce a child into

4 opening the door, and peering through windows,” and that the officers “remained on the

5 premises for approximately two hours.” Id. He also alleges four other police officers—

6 Delmas Farrell, Chad Pleadwell, Joshua Sholten, and Tyler Hatcher—“[p]articipated in

7 illegal search/seizure and coercive tactics” or were “[c]omplicit in police practices.” Id.

8 at 11. It is unclear if these other officers interacted with Mr. Speidel or were at the scene

9 at all Id. Ultimately, after unsuccessfully attempting to speak with Mr. Speidel, Officer

10 Packard and Sergeant Clifford towed Mr. Speidel’s motorcycle, issued two traffic

11 citations, and filed charges for criminal obstruction. Id. at 15.

12 Mr. Speidel appeared for a court hearing on October 24, 2024. Id. Mr. Speidel

13 alleges that at the hearing, his public defender “exhibited conduct suggesting an active

14 conflict of interest” and that he later learned the public defender was “transitioning to a

15 prosecutorial role in a neighboring county.” Id. Further, he alleges the recording of this

16 October 24 hearing was “altered,” that the court clerk potentially took part in the

17 tampering, and a prosecutor and multiple public defenders failed to take action to correct

18 the discrepancy. Id. at 15–16.

19 Mr. Speidel alleges he contacted a litany of individuals about the events described

20 above, including the Anacortes mayor, chief of police, city attorney, several city council

21 members, and other city staff. Id. at 16. None responded to his complaint. Id.

22 Finally, Mr. Speidel filed a claim with the Anacortes claims adjuster, Tiffany

23 Ambrose. Id. at 13. Mr. Speidel alleges she “summarily denied the claim based solely

24 on the officers’ narrative and refused to acknowledge or investigate misconduct.” Id.

25

26

1 “Her actions may demonstrate bad faith claims handling and further evidence systemic

2 denial of redress, contributing to ongoing harm.” Id.

3 As a result of these allegations, Mr. Speidel named all individuals described above

4 as defendants in this case. He asserts against them claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

5 violations of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth

6 Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for civil conspiracy. Id. at 14. He seeks relief

7 including $33 million in damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and removal of all

8 named officials from office. Id. at 17.

9 B. Allegations Against the Judicial Officers

10 Mr. Speidel also brings the same claims against the Judicial Officers. Id. In

11 describing the allegations against the Judicial Officers, the Court takes judicial notice of

12 documents filed in Mr. Speidel’s Skagit County Superior Court case. See Harris v.

13 County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We may take judicial notice of

14 undisputed matters of public record . . . including documents on file in federal or state

15 courts.”).

16 Commissioner Hayne presided over Mr. Speidel’s traffic infraction case in

17 Anacortes Municipal Court. Dkt. # 34 at 11. On July 25, 2024, she denied Mr. Speidel’s

18 motion to suppress evidence and found Mr. Speidel committed two traffic infractions.

19 Id.1 Mr. Speidel appealed the decision, which the Skagit County Superior Court denied

20 on February 14, 2025. Dkt. # 34 at 23. In his complaint, Mr. Speidel alleges

21 Commissioner Hayne failed “to respond to requests for hearing and due process

22 oversight.” Dkt. # 1 at 12.

23

24

25 1 The criminal obstruction charge against Mr. Speidel was apparently dismissed at some

point. Dkt. # 30 at 5.

26

1 It is unclear from the complaint and the judicially noticed documents how

2 Commissioner Eason and Judge Nielsen were involved with Mr. Speidel’s case or how

3 they otherwise interacted with him. Dkt. # 30 at 2. Mr. Speidel’s only allegation against

4 Commissioner Eason is that he engaged in “complicity or indifference in review of

5 suppression motions.” Dkt. # 1 at 12. As to Judge Nielsen, Mr. Speidel appears to allege

6 he engaged in misconduct during a past court proceeding in 2021, including editing the

7 court record from that proceeding. Id. at 13. Mr. Speidel alleges Judge Nielsen’s past

8 actions “suggest a coordinated effort to undermine a defendant’s right to a fair trial” and

9 “indicate participation in a civil conspiracy to deprive citizens of their constitutional

10 rights.” Id.

11 C. Procedural History

12 On April 14, 2025, Mr. Speidel filed his original complaint. Dkt. # 1. On April

13 24, 2025, the City Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 29. On May 6, 2025, the

14 Judicial Officers also filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 30. Mr. Speidel did not file an

15 opposition to either motion, but on May 22, 2025, he filed an amended complaint and a

16 motion to appoint counsel. Dkts. # 35, 36. On June 2, 2025, the Judicial Officers filed a

17 response to the new filings, in which they indicated they intend to stand on the arguments

18 made in their motion to dismiss the original complaint. Dkt. # 37. The City Defendants

19 filed a joinder to that response. Dkt. # 38.

20 Wagner, the individual who initially reported Mr. Speidel’s traffic violation to the

21 police, is the sole unrepresented defendant in this case. Mr. Speidel has not filed a

22 certificate confirming he served Wagner, and Wagner has not filed any documents in this

23 case.

24

25

26

1 III. DISCUSSION

2 A. Motion to Appoint Counsel

3 Mr. Speidel seeks appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Dkt. #

4 36. Under that statute, the “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable

5 to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute applies only to individuals

6 proceeding in forma pauperis. See Chan v. Ryan, No. 22-cv-1796, 2023 WL 197429, at

7 *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023). The decision to appoint counsel is within “the sound

8 discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman

9 v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy,

10 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)). A finding of exceptional circumstances “requires

11 at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an

12 evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of

13 the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

14 (9th Cir. 1986)).

15 Mr. Speidel does not qualify for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §

16 1915(e)(1) because he paid his filing fee and is therefore not proceeding in forma

17 pauperis. Moreover, the Court, in its discretion, finds there are no exceptional

18 circumstances supporting appointment of counsel. For the reasons discussed below, at

19 this juncture, it does not appear Mr. Speidel is likely to succeed on the merits of his

20 claims. Moreover, the core of his allegations is not unusually complex, and he has

21 demonstrated an ability to sufficiently articulate them.

22 B. City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

23 The Court next turns to the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a threshold

24 matter, the Court addresses the impact of Mr. Speidel’s amended complaint, filed after

25 the City Defendants’ and Judicial Officers’ motions to dismiss. In light of the leniency

26

1 afforded to pro se litigants, the Court is not inclined to disregard the amended complaint

2 based on arguments that Mr. Speidel filed the amended complaint too late, without leave

3 to amend, and without complying with local rule requirements. In addition, while an

4 amended complaint typically replaces the original complaint, the Court notes Mr.

5 Speidel’s amended complaint contains significantly less detail than his original

6 complaint, and is therefore even less likely to survive a motion to dismiss. Again, in light

7 of the leniency afforded to pro se litigants, the Court will construe the complaint and

8 amended complaint as a single document for purposes of analyzing the pending motions

9 to dismiss.

10 To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must point to factual allegations in the

11 complaint that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In analyzing a motion to dismiss, courts “accept all

13 factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most

14 favorable to the nonmoving party.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.

15 2005). “Conclusory allegations and unreasonable inferences, however, are insufficient

16 to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007).

17 1. Claims Against Officer Packard and Sergeant Clifford

18 Mr. Speidel appears to assert only claims based on Fourth Amendment violations

19 against Officer Packard and Sergeant Clifford. Dkt. # 1 at 14. The City Defendants argue

20 these claims should be dismissed because (1) the officers did not seize Mr. Speidel; (2)

21 Mr. Speidel does not allege facts establishing a search within the scope of the Fourth

22 Amendment. Dkt. # 29 at 4–6. The Court agrees.

23 a. Unreasonable Seizure

24 The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S.

25 Const. amend. IV. “For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when a law

26

1 enforcement officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, in some way

2 restrains the liberty of a citizen.” United States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1326

3 (9th Cir. 1997). “A police officer has restrained the liberty of the citizen if, taking into

4 account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would

5 have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police

6 presence and go about his business.” Id. (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437

7 (1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “no seizure occurs if a suspect

8 does not yield in response to a show of authority.” United States v. Smith, 217 F.3d 746,

9 750 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625–26 (1991)).

10 Here, Mr. Speidel fails to allege an unreasonable seizure because he never yielded

11 to Officer Packard and Sergeant Clifford’s authority. Dkt. # 1 at 15. When Officer

12 Packard attempted to speak with Mr. Speidel, Mr. Speidel refused, entered a nearby

13 apartment, and never came out to speak with the officers. Id.

14 b. Unreasonable Search

15 “A government agent conducts a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth

16 Amendment when the agent infringes ‘an expectation of privacy that society is prepared

17 to consider reasonable’ or ‘physically occupie[s] private property for the purpose of

18 obtaining information.’” United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir. 2016)

19 (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) and United States v. Jones,

20 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012)). At the very core of the Fourth Amendment “stands the right

21 of a [person] to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable

22 governmental intrusion.” Id. at 1157 (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505,

23 511 (1961)). This protection extends to the curtilage of the home, which is the “area

24 immediately surrounding and associated with the home.” Id. at 1158 (quoting Oliver v.

25 United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition,

26

1 a person “may have a legally sufficient interest in a place other than her own house so as

2 to extend Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures in that

3 place.” United States v. Barajas-Avalos, 377 F.3d 1040, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

4 United States v. Broadhurst, 805 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1986)). For example, “a person

5 has standing to challenge an alleged search if he or she has ‘joint control and supervision’

6 of the place.” Id.

7 “An observation of the interior of a protected structure through a window, even

8 when enhanced by a flashlight, does not constitute a search when the observation is made

9 from an open field or public place.” Id. at 1056. Thus, in Delong v. City of Port Orchard,

10 No. 06-cv-5115, 2006 WL 2290742 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2006), the court found an

11 officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by using “a flashlight to look inside the

12 window near the front door from a place accessible by the public.” Id., at *8. On the

13 other hand, in United States v. Fuentes, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (D. Or. July 8, 2011), the

14 court found it was unreasonable to “enter the curtilage of [defendant’s] home, stand

15 within inches of a window that is not associated with any point of entry, and peer into the

16 home without any particularized basis for believing exigent circumstances existed.” Id.

17 at 1154.

18 As alleged, there are insufficient facts to suggest the officers engaged in an

19 unreasonable search. It is unclear from the allegations how Mr. Speidel is connected with

20 the apartment he entered. He does not allege he is the legal owner or tenant of the

21 apartment, that he has “joint control and supervision” of the place, or that he otherwise

22 has such sufficient interests in the apartment to give rise to Fourth Amendment

23 protections.2 Further, Mr. Speidel’s bare allegation that the officers were “peering

24

25 2 It appears from a related case that the apartment may belong to Mr. Speidel’s girlfriend.

Klaister v. City of Anacortes, No. 25-cv-1459-RAJ, Dkts. # 1, 5.

26

1 through the windows” is insufficient. Id. It is unclear from these allegations whether the

2 officers lawfully looked into the apartment windows from a public place, or if they

3 unlawfully did so from the curtilage of the home away from any point of entry.

4 The City Defendants also argue the officers’ conduct fall within the “knock and

5 talk” exception. Dkt. # 29 at 5–6. Under that exception, an officer may “encroach upon

6 the curtilage of a home for the purposes of asking questions of the occupants.” Lundin,

7 817 F.3d at 1158 (quoting United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir.

8 2012)). “[T]o qualify for the exception, the government must demonstrate that the

9 officers conformed to the habits of the country . . . by doing no more than any private

10 citizen might do.” Id. at 1159 (quoting Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013)) (internal

11 quotation marks omitted). “In the typical case, if the police do not have a warrant they

12 may ‘approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received,

13 and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.’” Id. (quoting Jardines, 569 U.S. at

14 8). Mr. Speidel alleges the officers approached the apartment after 9 p.m., engaged in

15 “persistent knocking,” “attempt[ed] to coerce a child into opening the door,” and

16 remained on the premises for approximately two hours. Dkt. # 1 at 15. This potentially

17 exceeds the bounds of what society deems acceptable for a private citizen. However, the

18 Court will not reach the applicability of the “knock and talk” exception because as

19 discussed above, the complaint does not sufficiently allege Mr. Speidel was entitled to

20 Fourth Amendment protections within the apartment he entered.

21 2. Claims Against Other Officers

22 Mr. Speidel also sued Officers Farrell, Pleadwell, Sholten, and Hatcher because

23 they “[p]articipated in illegal search/seizure and coercive tactics” and were “[c]omplicit

24

25

26

1 in police practices.” Dkt. # 1 at 11.3 Claims against these officers are dismissed because

2 the complaint does not allege what involvement they had with Mr. Speidel, if any.

3 Moreover, because Mr. Speidel does not plausibly allege an underlying illegal search or

4 seizure, he fails to allege these officers “participated” or were “complicit” in a

5 constitutional violation.

6 3. Claims Against Court Clerk, Prosecutor, and Public Defenders

7 “Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights

8 violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.” Acres

9 Bonusing, Inc. v. Marston, 17 F.4th 901, 916 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Mullis v. U.S.

10 Bankr. Court for Dist. Of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987)). Similarly,

11 prosecutors are “absolutely immune from liability in § 1983 lawsuits for prosecutorial

12 actions that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

13 Lomeli v. County of San Diego, 637 F. Supp. 3d 1046, 1076 (S.D. Cal. 2022) (quoting

14 Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 341 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

15 “Absolute immunity from damages applies even when prosecutors are alleged to have

16 acted in bad faith or maliciously.” Id. (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427

17 (1976)). Finally, a public defender representing a client is not “a state actor ‘under color

18 of state law’ within the meaning of § 1983.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318

19 (1981).

20 Mr. Speidel sued the court clerk, prosecutor, and multiple public defenders based

21 on alleged misconduct during his October 24, 2024 hearing. Dkt. # 1 at 15–16.

22 Specifically, Mr. Speidel alleges they either took part in, or failed to correct, the alleged

23

3 Mr. Speidel also sued Police Chief Dave Floyd. Id. The Court reads Mr. Speidel’s

24

complaint as including Chief Floyd among the group of city officials who received Mr.

25 Speidel’s written complaint and failed to take corrective action. The claims against Chief

Floyd are therefore addressed below.

26

1 alteration of court records. Id. He further alleges his public defender exhibited “conduct

2 suggesting an active conflict of interest.” Id. These allegations fundamentally arise from

3 each of these defendants’ actions while performing their duties as clerk, prosecutor, or

4 public defender. The claims against the clerk and prosecutor are therefore precluded by

5 immunity, and the allegations against the public defenders cannot give rise to a § 1983

6 claim.

7 4. Claims Against City Officials

8 Next, Mr. Speidel alleges he complained about the events described above to the

9 Anacortes mayor, chief of police, city attorney, several city council members, and other

10 city staff, and that they each failed to take corrective action. Id. at 16. Claims against

11 these individuals are dismissed because there is no constitutional requirement for public

12 officials to respond to citizen complaints.

13 5. Claims Against City Claims Adjuster

14 Mr. Speidel alleges the city claims adjuster, Ms. Ambrose, failed to reasonably

15 investigate his claims. Id. at 13. Claims against Ms. Ambrose are similarly dismissed

16 because there is no constitutional requirement for a city claims adjuster to investigate a

17 citizen’s claims.

18 6. Claims Against City Defendants in Official Capacity

19 Mr. Speidel sued all defendants in both their individual and official capacities.

20 Official-capacity suits “generally represent only another way of pleading an action

21 against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,

22 165–66 (1985) (quoting Monell v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690

23 (1978)). “As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to

24 respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit

25 against the entity.” Id. To establish § 1983 liability against the government entity, the

26

1 plaintiff must show the entity itself is the “moving force” behind the alleged

2 constitutional deprivation. Id. Thus, “in an official-capacity suit the entity’s ‘policy or

3 custom’ must have played a part in the violation of federal law.” Id. Mr. Speidel fails to

4 plausibly state official capacity claims against the City Defendants because he does not

5 identify any policy or custom leading to the alleged constitutional violations.

6 7. Claims under Section 1985

7 To “state a claim for conspiracy under § 1985, a plaintiff must first have a

8 cognizable claim under § 1983.” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. Of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 930

9 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Mr. Speidel fails to state a claim against the City Defendants

10 under § 1983, his § 1985 claims against them are also dismissed.

11 C. Judicial Officers’ Motion to Dismiss

12 Turning to the Judicial Officers’ motion to dismiss, they argue the Court should

13 dismiss the claims against them under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “The Rooker-

14 Feldman doctrine recognizes that federal courts generally lack subject matter jurisdiction

15 to review state court judgments.” Fontana Empire Ctr., LLC v. City of Fontana, 307

16 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2002). “The doctrine also precludes a federal district court from

17 exercising jurisdiction over general constitutional challenges that are ‘inextricably

18 intertwined’ with claims asserted in state court.” Id. “A claim is inextricably intertwined

19 with a state court judgment if ‘the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state

20 court wrongly decided the issues before it’ . . . or if ‘the relief requested in the federal

21 action would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling.’” Id. (quoting

22 Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987) and Charchenko v. City of Stillwater,

23 47 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995)).

24 Mr. Speidel’s claims against Commissioner Hayne and Commissioner Eason are

25 precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they in essence seek to challenge the

26

1 state court traffic infraction judgment against him. Specifically, Mr. Speidel alleges that

2 while presiding over his traffic infraction case, Commissioner Hayne failed to “respond

3 to requests for hearing and due process oversight.” Dkt. # 1 at 12. In addition, although

4 it is unclear how exactly Commissioner Eason was involved in Mr. Speidel’s case, Mr.

5 Speidel similarly alleges that Commissioner Eason engaged in “complicity or

6 indifference in review of suppression motions.” Id. These are impermissible attacks on

7 judicial decisions inextricably intertwined with the final state court judgment.

8 Mr. Speidel’s allegations against Judge Nielsen conceivably do not relate to his

9 state court judgment and therefore falls outside the scope of the Rooker-Feldman

10 doctrine. Mr. Speidel appears to allege that during a hearing in 2021, Judge Nielsen

11 engaged in “potential editing of the court record.” Id. at 13. Nevertheless, “[i]t is well

12 established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts.”

13 Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S.

14 547, 553–54 (1967)). “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting

15 maliciously and corruptly.” Pierson, 386 U.S. at 554. Claims against Judge Nielsen stem

16 from his performance of judicial duties are therefore precluded by judicial immunity.

17 D. Claims Against Wagner

18 Finally, Mr. Speidel sued Wagner, the individual who allegedly reported Mr.

19 Speidel’s traffic infraction to the police. Dkt. # 1 at 14. To state a § 1983 claim, the

20 alleged constitutional deprivation must have been committed “under color of state law.”

21 Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49–50 (1999). This requirement

22 “[e]xcludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or

23 wrongful.” Id. (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982)) (internal quotation

24 marks omitted). Here, the allegations against Wagner implicate private conduct and does

25 not give rise to a § 1983 claim.

26

1 E. Leave to Amend

2 “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some

3 notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

4 could not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.

5 1995). Given the liberal policy in favor of amendment, the Court finds Mr. Speidel’s

6 §§ 1983 and 1985 claims arising from an alleged unreasonable search are potentially

7 capable of amendment. Thus, those claims against Sergeant Clifford and Officers

8 Packard, Farrell, Pleadwell, Sholten, and Hatcher, in their individual and official

9 capacities, are dismissed with leave to amend. However, for the reasons discussed above,

10 Mr. Speidel may not proceed on the theory that he was subjected to an unreasonable

11 seizure. Next, Mr. Speidel’s claims against the remaining City Defendants, the Judicial

12 Officers, and Wagner are either precluded by immunity, are based on actions that cannot

13 give rise to § 1983 liability, or are precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. These

14 claims cannot be cured and are dismissed without leave to amend.4

15 //

16 //

17 //

18 //

19 //

20 //

21

22

23

4 Dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a dismissal for lack of subject matter

24

jurisdiction, which is without prejudice. See Kroncke v. Saldate, 130 Fed. App’x 110,

25 111 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, claims against Commissioner Hayne and Commissioner

Eason are dismissed without prejudice, although without leave to amend.

26

1 IV. CONCLUSION

2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint

3 counsel, Dkt. # 36.

4 The Court GRANTS the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 29. Claims

5 against Defendants Clifford, Packard, Farrell, Pleadwell, Sholten, and Hatcher, in their

6 individual and official capacities, under §§ 1983 and 1985 for unreasonable search under

7 the Fourth Amendment are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH

8 LEAVE TO AMEND within 21 days of this Order. All claims against the remaining

9 City Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

10 The Court GRANTS the Judicial Officers’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 30. Claims

11 against Commissioner Hayne and Commissioner Eason are DISMISSED WITHOUT

12 PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Claims against Judge Nielsen

13 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

14 The Court, sua sponte, DISMISSES claims against Defendant Wagner WITH

15 PREJUDICE.

16

17 Dated this 21st day of October, 2025.

18 A

19

20 The Honorable Richard A. Jones

United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26