Brandi Abts v. Judge Ronald J. Israel, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01382
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 BRANDI ABTS, 6 Case No. 2:25-cv-01382-CDS-NJK Plaintiff, 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. 8 JUDGE RONALD J. ISRAEL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On July 31, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to 12 amend. Docket No. 3. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.1 Docket No. 8. 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint and application to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff is attempting to bring suit against Judge Ronald 17 J. Israel and Judge Joseph Hardy, Jr. for rulings made “while acting in [their] official judicial 18 capacity.” Docket No. 1-1 at 7. On July 31, 2025, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis and affording Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended 20 complaint if deficiencies in the original complaint could be corrected. Docket No. 3. The Court 21 explained that “[j]udges enjoy broad immunity from civil claims regarding their judicial conduct. 22 … In light of Defendants’ entitlement to judicial immunity, Plaintiff’s claims in the complaint 23 fail.” Id. at 2-3. On September 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Docket No. 8. 24 II. STANDARDS 25 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 26 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 27 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 28 89, 94 (2007). 1 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 2 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 3 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 4 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 5 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 6 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 8 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 9 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 10 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 11 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 13 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 14 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 15 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 16 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 17 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 18 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 19 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 20 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 21 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 22 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 23 Judges enjoy broad immunity from civil claims regarding their judicial conduct. As 24 explained by the Ninth Circuit: Anglo-American common law has long recognized judicial 25 immunity, a sweeping form of immunity for acts performed by 26 judges that relate to the judicial process. This absolute immunity insulates judges from charges of erroneous acts or irregular action, 27 even when it is alleged that such action was driven by malicious or corrupt motives, or when the exercise of judicial authority is flawed 28 by the commission of grave procedural errors. Judicial immunity discourages collateral attacks on final judgments through civil suits, 1 and thus promotes the use of appellate procedures as the standard 2 system for correcting judicial error. Most judicial mistakes or wrongs are open to correction through ordinary mechanisms of 3 review. 4 Curry v. Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation modified). 5 III. SCREENING 6 The Court previously explained to Plaintiff that “[i]n light of Defendants’ entitlement to 7 judicial immunity, Plaintiff’s claims in the complaint fail.” Docket No. 3 at 3. Nonetheless, 8 Plaintiff once again attempts to brings claims against two state court judges for actions taken 9 “within the scope of their official duties.” Docket No. 8 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that the judges 10 “acted jointly” with opposing counsel2 and/or were biased against Plaintiff in ruling against 11 Plaintiff in the state court proceedings. See Docket No. 8 at 9–13. Plaintiff appealed within the 12 state court system, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. See Abts 13 v. Arnold-Abts, 558 P.3d 1212 (Nev. App. Nov. 7, 2024). In short, Plaintiff has not cured the 14 deficiencies in the original complaint. 15 In the instant complaint, Plaintiff cites to Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980), for the 16 proposition that “[j]udicial immunity does not shield judges acting outside their judicial function 17 or in conspiracy with private individuals.” Docket No. 8 at 10. However, this argument is 18 inapplicable in this context because Dennis clearly states that, “[j]udges are immune from § 1983 19 damages actions, but they are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens.” 449 U.S. at 20 31 (citing O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974)). Further, Dennis explains that “judges 21 defending against § 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts 22 performed in their judicial capacities.” 449 U.S. at 27 (citing Supreme Ct. of Virginia v. 23 Consumers Union of U. S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 734–35 (1980)). The instant complaint attempts to 24 bring damages claims under § 1983 for allegations regarding state court litigation. See Docket No. 25 8. These claims fall squarely under the protection of judicial immunity. The deficiencies in 26 Plaintiff’s amended complaint therefore cannot be cured. 27 2 Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against opposing counsel. See Abts v. Marr, No. 2:25- 28 cv-01377-GMN-EJY (D. Nev. July 28, 2025). CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be 3] DISMISSED with prejudice. 4 Dated: September 22, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe\.“ 7 United Statés.N lagistzate Judge NOTICE ° This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned " to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and " recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file ° a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 "4 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28