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 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 LAUREN KING, JAMAL WHITEHEAD, 12

13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs allege two judges in this 16 District have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and seek money damages. Dkt. # 1-1. 17 On May 28, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause within seven days why this action 18 should not be dismissed with prejudice due to judicial immunity. Dkt. # 5. The Court has 19 considered and thoroughly reviewed all materials submitted by Plaintiffs, including the 20 information submitted directly to chambers and after the Order to Show Cause deadline. See 21 Dkt. ## 2, 3, 6, 9. Being fully advised, for the reasons below, the Court DISMISSES this matter 22 with prejudice. 23 24 1 A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 2 subject to screening, and a court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to 3 state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants that are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

4 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Every 5 complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 6 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff does not need to provide detailed factual 7 allegations, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 9 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Still, where the plaintiff is pro se, courts 10 “construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. 11 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th 12 Cir. 1985) (en banc)).

13 Judicial immunity is overcome only in two circumstances: (1) “a judge is not immune 14 from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity” and 15 (2) “a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence 16 of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991). 17 Plaintiffs do demonstrate that either circumstance is present here. Although Plaintiffs 18 say, “Judge Whitehead dismissed Plaintiffs’ Bivens claim under judicial immunity” and 19 “[j]udicial immunity does not apply to personal-capacity actions,” these statements are 20 contradictory. Dkt. # 9 at 7. Judge Whitehead’s dismissal of a claim is a function normally 21 performed by a judge, so it is a judicial action—not a personal action. See Mireles, 502 U.S. at 22 12. In addition, Plaintiffs claim that Judge Whitehead’s dismissal “included discriminatory

23 language” that “violates the principles of judicial impartiality.” Dkt. # 9 at 7–8. Even if Judge 24 Whitehead’s order includes discriminatory language, judicial immunity still exists because |{Judicial immunity extends to judicial actions “done maliciously[.]” Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for 2 || Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, Judge Whitehead is afforded 3 ||judicial immunity for dismissing Plaintiffs’ Bivens claim. 4 The only reference Plaintiffs make to Judge King is to attach two of her orders dismissing 5 prior complaints. Dkt. #3. Again, dismissing a complaint is a function normally 6 || performed by a judge so it is a judicial action and Judge King is afforded judicial immunity for 7 decision. Plaintiffs likewise do not argue—nor is it apparent—that Judge King or 8 Whitehead acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction, so judicial immunity is not overcome 9 for this reason either. 10 Plaintiffs have every right to disagree with the rulings made by Judges King and 11 Whitehead, and they can appeal these decisions to the Ninth Circuit. But they cannot pursue the 12 claims in their complaint due to the doctrine of judicial immunity. Thus, the Court DISMISSES 13 this matter with prejudice. Dkt. #1. The Court STRIKES the pending motions in this matter as 14 moot. Dkt. ## 1, 2, 3, 6. 15 Dated this Sth day of June, 2025. 16 whe. aq , 17 a H. Chun United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24