Card v. Christel

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 24, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05005
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TONY LAMAR CARD, 10 Plaintiff, NO. 2:23-cv-01167-SAB 11 v. 12 DAVID W. CHRISTEL, TIFFANY M. ORDER DENYING 13 CARTWRIGHT, GRADY J. LEUPOLD, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 14 Defendants. PROCEED IFP; DISMISSING 15 COMPLAINT 16 17 Plaintiff Tony Lamar Card, proceeding pro se in this civil matter, filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s IFP 19 application indicates he is currently unemployed. 20 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), when a complaint is frivolous, malicious, 21 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 22 against a defendant who is immune from such relief, the Court shall dismiss the 23 case at any time. 24 Plaintiff is suing sitting federal judges in the Western District of 25 Washington. Although Plaintiff indicates he is suing the judges in their individual 26 capacity, the Complaint fails to provide any facts that support that contention. 27 Even so, it is well settled that “judges and those performing judge-like functions 28 are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official 1 functions.” Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 866 (9th Cir.1992) “A judge is not 2 deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done 3 maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 4 356 (1978). Plaintiff has failed to state any potentially cognizable claims against 5 any of the named-Defendants. 6 Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege any facts in his Complaint. Instead, he 7 attached U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 8 (1803); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886); Haines v. Kerner et al., 404 9 U.S. 519 (1972); and Cruden v. Neale. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is 10 frivolous and intended to harass the federal judges that have previously ruled 11 against him. 12 Although the Ninth Circuit has instructed that district courts should grant pro 13 se plaintiff’s leave to amend, the Court declines to do so because it is clear an 14 amended complaint will not be able to cure the defect. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 15 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 16 Additionally, a district court may deny leave to proceed IFP at the outset if it 17 appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or 18 without merit. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998); Tripati v. 19 First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F. 2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). As set forth above, 20 the proposed complaint is frivolous and entirely without merit. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 1, is DENIED. 3 2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice. 3. Plaintiff's Demand for Immediate Injunction, ECF No. 9, is DENIED. 5 4. The Clerk shall enter Judgment and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to file this Order, provide copies to Plaintiff. 8 DATED this 24th day of January 2024. 9 10 . Sue htt Scctean i Stanley A. Bastian 13 USS. District Court Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP;