Finney v. Ochoa-Bruck

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: May 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 May 24, 2022 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 ROLAND WILLIS FINNEY, No. 2:22-CV-00060-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 GLORIA OCHOA-BRUCK, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 Defendant. 14 15 On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint and Application to 16 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF Nos. 1, 2. On April 12 2022, the Court granted 17 his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 4. 18 Plaintiff is suing Gloria Ochoa-Bruck, who is a Spokane Municipal Judge. 19 He also named Ryan Dalessi as a Defendant. The Court believes that Mr. Dalessi is 20 a prosecutor for the City of Spokane. From the Complaint, it appears there is an 21 ongoing criminal matter in Spokane Municipal Court. On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff 22 appeared before Judge Ochoa-Bruck, who placed him under arrest for asking that 23 jurisdiction be placed on the record as required by law. He also asked her for 24 validation of her Oath of Office, her citizenship, and the verified complaint. He 25 asserts that she is requiring that he be represented by a public defender. There are 26 not any factual allegations concerning Mr. Dalessi in the Complaint. 27 Plaintiff is bringing claims against Judge Ochoa-Bruck and Ryan Dalessi 28 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 1 Equal Protection of the law; Judge and Judicial misconduct; Acting outside powers 2 and authority; conspiracy to commit fraud; high treason; intimidation and threat to 3 harm; supremacy clause; due process; court abuse, abuse of power, violating the 4 right to defend himself and deprivation of rights under the color of law. ECF No. 5 1-1 at 1-2. 6 Plaintiff is asking for “the Judges to respect and honor the oath they have 7 [taken]for the Constitution. To mediate the hearing not lawyer it. Stop the 8 intimidation and punishment for a civilian.” ECF No. 1 at 7. 9 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Review 10 When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required 11 to review the complaint and dismiss such complaint, or portions of the complaint, 12 if it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may 13 be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 14 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 15 1981). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of 16 the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable 17 facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 18 (1992). 19 Analysis 20 Generally speaking, the Younger abstention doctrine forbids federal courts 21 from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 22 37, 53-54 (1971); see also Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar 23 Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (stating that Younger “and its progeny espouse a 24 strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial 25 proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances”). The Ninth Circuit has held that 26 abstention is appropriate when: (1) the state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) 27 the proceedings implicate important state interests; (3) the state proceedings 28 provide an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the 1 relief requested “seek[s] to enjoin” or has “the practical effect of enjoining” the 2 ongoing state judicial proceedings. Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th 3 Cir. 2018). Where all elements are met, a district court must abstain from hearing 4 the case and dismiss the action. See Beltran v. State of Cal., 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th 5 Cir. 1988) (stating that “[w]here Younger abstention is appropriate, a district court 6 cannot refuse to abstain, retain jurisdiction over the action, and render a decision 7 on the merits after the state proceedings have ended ... [because] Younger 8 abstention requires dismissal of the federal action”) However, even where Younger 9 abstention is appropriate, “federal courts do not invoke it if there is a ‘showing of 10 bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make 11 abstention inappropriate.’” Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 765–66. 12 Also, it is well-settled that judges have absolute immunity from damage 13 liability for acts performed in their official capacities. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 14 219, 225 (1988); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). The 15 purpose of absolute immunity to protect the finality of judgments; discourage 16 inappropriate collateral attacks and to protect “judicial independence by insulating 17 judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.” Judicial 18 immunity applies “however erroneous the act may have been, and however 19 injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.” Cleavinger v. 20 Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985). 21 In addition, prosecutors are afforded absolute immunity for when they are 22 acting within the scope of their duties in initiating and pursuing criminal 23 prosecution and in presenting the state’s cases. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 24 430 (1976). 25 Here, the Court abstains from hearing this action and will dismiss the case. 26 Based on the allegations in the Complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff is asking this 27 federal court to intervene in an on-going state criminal proceeding and he has not 28 alleged facts suggesting bad faith, harassment, or any other extraordinary l|| circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate. In addition, based on the allegations in the Complaint, it is clear that Judge Ochoa-Bruck and Mr. Dalessi would be entitled to absolute immunity. The Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend, given that the Younger doctrine requires abstention, and Plaintiff would not be able to allege additional facts that would overcome absolute immunity. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED. IT ISSO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to Plaintiff, and close the file. The Court certifies that an appeal of 1 1|| this Order would not be taken in good faith. l DATED this 24th day of May 2022.

1 1 ‘ Sruckeyld Serhan Stanley A. Bastian | Chief United States District Judge 1 2 2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2