Alonzo McKinney v. Unknown

Opinion

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 10 ALONZO MCKINNEY, ) NO. 21-CV-03658-JGB (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ) 15 Defendant. ) 16 _________________________________ ) 17 18 On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a one- 19 page document titled “citizen complaint or judicial intervention” against the “San Diego Court 20 Clerk” in regards to “fees for state habeas writ.” (Dkt. No. 1.) The Clerk initially docketed 21 the document as a habeas petition, but the Court, upon further review, determined that Plaintiff 22 was not challenging the fact or duration of his custody and, therefore, had filed a civil rights 23 complaint—not a habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 4.) 24 25 However, the Complaint identifies no specific constitutional violations and provides no 26 specific statement of facts. The Complaint also appears to sue a court clerk, who is entitled to 27 immunity from damages for civil rights violations for tasks that are integral to the judicial 28 process. See Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 1 |} (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 2031 (1988). For these reasons, the Complaint is 2 || subject to dismissal. See FED. R. CIv. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics 3 || C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant 4 || would have difficulty understanding and responding to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 5 || (Congress requires district courts to dismiss civil rights complaints brought by prisoners if the 6 || court determines that the complaint, or any portion thereof, fails to state a claim upon which 7 || relief can be granted). 8 9 Additionally, on May 6, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the 10 || filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 4.) On 11 || May 14, 2021, after more than a week had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the 12 || Court’s notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than June 4, 2021, why 13 || the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 14 || proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 5.) 15 16 On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Response in which he states that the matter is “not a 17 || civil complaint for Judge Stevenson,” but, rather, “for U.S. attorney office to investigate 18 || misconduct of clerk.” (Dkt. No. 6) (errors in original). In effect, Plaintiff concedes that the 19 |} matter should be dismissed so that he can address his concerns with the United States 20 || Attorney’s Office. Plaintiff certainly does not attempt to show cause why the action should 21 || not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to proceed IFP. 22 || Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. 23 24 || DATED: June 17, 2021 noes 5 JESUS G. BERSAT UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 Presented by: 27 33 || Pace L: Bliensn KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5