Byrd v. Harper

W.D. Washington

Byrd v. Harper

DecidedAugust 14, 2019

Docket2:18-cv-00479

StatusUnknown

This text of Byrd v. Harper (Byrd v. Harper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byrd v. Harper, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 HOUSTON BYRD, 10 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479 RAJ 11 v. ORDER 12 HON. JUDGE A. HARPER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Final Request for Default Judgment, 17 Objection to the Court’s June 18, 2019 Order and Findings of Fact or Reparations. Dkt. # 18 14. Given the context of the motion, the Court construes this as a motion for 19 reconsideration. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a 22 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could 23 not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local 24 R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). 25 On June 18, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte. A district 26 court may sua sponte dismiss a pro se complaint filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(d) where the complaint is “frivolous” in that it lacks any arguable basis in law or 1 fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 2 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Plaintiff alleged that a King County judge committed perjury and other acts of 4 judicial misconduct in a state court case involving Plaintiff. The Complaint, however, 5 failed to put forth any facts supporting Plaintiff’s allegations and instead quoted numerous 6 statutes and cases concerning fraud on the court. Dkt. # 5 at 9-10. 7 Furthermore, it is settled that “[j]udges are immune from suit arising out of their 8 judicial acts, without regard to the motives with which their judicial acts are performed, 9 and notwithstanding such acts may have been performed in excess of jurisdiction, provided 10 there was not a clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Sires v. Cole, 320 11 F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978) 12 (explaining that a judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was 13 in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority). 14 The Court finds no manifest error in its prior ruling. Nor has Plaintiff submitted 15 any facts or new authority to alter the Court’s conclusion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is 16 DENIED. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. # 14.

19 DATED this 14th day of August, 2019. 20 A 21 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 HOUSTON BYRD, 10 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479 RAJ 11 v. ORDER 12 HON. JUDGE A. HARPER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Final Request for Default Judgment, 17 Objection to the Court’s June 18, 2019 Order and Findings of Fact or Reparations. Dkt. # 18 14. Given the context of the motion, the Court construes this as a motion for 19 reconsideration. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a 22 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could 23 not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local 24 R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). 25 On June 18, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte. A district 26 court may sua sponte dismiss a pro se complaint filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(d) where the complaint is “frivolous” in that it lacks any arguable basis in law or 1 fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 2 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Plaintiff alleged that a King County judge committed perjury and other acts of 4 judicial misconduct in a state court case involving Plaintiff. The Complaint, however, 5 failed to put forth any facts supporting Plaintiff’s allegations and instead quoted numerous 6 statutes and cases concerning fraud on the court. Dkt. # 5 at 9-10. 7 Furthermore, it is settled that “[j]udges are immune from suit arising out of their 8 judicial acts, without regard to the motives with which their judicial acts are performed, 9 and notwithstanding such acts may have been performed in excess of jurisdiction, provided 10 there was not a clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Sires v. Cole, 320 11 F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978) 12 (explaining that a judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was 13 in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority). 14 The Court finds no manifest error in its prior ruling. Nor has Plaintiff submitted 15 any facts or new authority to alter the Court’s conclusion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is 16 DENIED. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. # 14.

19 DATED this 14th day of August, 2019. 20 A 21 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Byrd v. Harper, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-harper-wawd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack