Friend v. Bryan

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 17, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05517
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 HORACE G. FRIEND, CASE NO. C21-5517-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ROBERT J. BRYAN, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 7) to United States 16 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 6) 17 regarding Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. No. 4). For the 18 reasons explained herein, the R&R (Dkt. No. 6) is ADOPTED, the objections (Dkt. No. 7) are 19 OVERRULED, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED, and this case is 20 DISMISSED with prejudice. 21 On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this matter with a proposed pro se civil rights 22 complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) Plaintiff names the Honorable Robert J. 23 Bryan, United States District Judge, as the sole defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Judge Bryan violated 24 Plaintiff’s rights by deciding one of Plaintiff’s cases on summary judgment, rather than allowing the 25 case to go to trial. (Id.) On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a completed application to proceed IFP. 26 (Dkt. No. 4.) On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proposed amendment to the proposed 1 complaint to include two new defendants, both Washington state superior court judges. (Dkt. No. 2 5.) Plaintiff alleges Judge Schwartz violated Plaintiff’s rights by dismissing his car accident case 3 and Judge Martin improperly signed a decision. (Id. at 1–2.) 4 Judge Christel found that all of Judges Bryan’s, Schwartz’s, and Martin’s acts 5 complained of by Plaintiff relate to the judicial process, entitling them to absolute judicial 6 immunity from this suit. (Dkt. No. 6 at 3.) Judge Christel thus recommended Plaintiff’s 7 application to proceed IFP be denied, this case be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for 8 failure to state a claim, and any IFP status on appeal be denied without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) 9 Plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 7.) 10 A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s 11 R&R to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party 12 properly objects when he or she files “specific written objections” to the magistrate judge’s R&R 13 as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). In contrast, general objections or 14 summaries of arguments previously presented have the same effect as no objection at all since 15 they do not focus the Court’s attention on any specific issues for review. Howard v. Sec’y of 16 Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). This Court’s consideration of such 17 “objections” would entail de novo review of the entire report, rendering the referral to the 18 magistrate judge useless and causing a duplication of time and effort that wastes judicial 19 resources and contradicts the purposes of the Magistrates Act. Id. Accordingly, de novo review is 20 not required when a party fails to direct the Court to a specific error in the R&R. Strawbridge v. 21 Sugar Mountain Resort, Inc., 243 F.Supp.2d 472, 475 (W.D.N.C. 2003). 22 Plaintiff points to no specific error in Judge Christel’s analysis, nor can the Court find 23 one. Instead, he repeats his unsupported arguments that the proposed Defendants lacked 24 jurisdiction over his cases and violated the U.S. Constitution. (Dkt. No. 7.) As Judge Christel 25 concluded, there is “no reasonable basis to conclude that the judges do not have jurisdiction to 26 act in Plaintiff’s cases.” (Dkt. No. 6 at 3.) The three proposed Defendants all have absolute 1 judicial immunity from the relief Plaintiff seeks. See Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th 2 Cir. 1985) (noting absolute immunity fails to attach to judicial officers only when they act clearly 3 and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction). 4 Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. 5 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii). Further, the Court notes that amendment would be futile. See Swartz v. 6 KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 8 (1) The Court ADOPTS the R&R; 9 (2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice; 10 (3) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; 11 (4) The Clerk is further DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the parties. 12 DATED this 17th day of September 2021. 13 14 15 A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26