Granger v. King

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 LONI NICOLE GRANGER, CASEY CASE NO. 25-cv-00997-JHC 8 MICHAEL GRANGER, ORDER 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 LAUREN KING, JAMAL WHITEHEAD, 12

13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs’ proposed complaint names 16 two judges in this District as Defendants and sues them in their individual capacity for actions 17 taken in their judicial capacity. Dkt. # 1-1. Judges that are sued in their personal capacity for 18 decisions made in their judicial capacity are generally afforded absolute judicial 19 immunity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225–26 (1988). Judicial immunity applies 20 “however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may 21 have proved to the plaintiff.” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199–200 (1985) (quoting 22 Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347 (1871)). 23 24 l Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE within seven (7) days of 2 || the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice due to judicial 3 immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming denial of 4 motion to amend in suit against judge where pro se plaintiff made no allegation that judge’s 5 || ultimate actions were not judicial). 6 Dated this 28th day of May, 2025. ba. 4 Chur g John H. Chun United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24