Harvey v. Valenzuela

D. Arizona

Harvey v. Valenzuela

DecidedApril 22, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01313

StatusUnknown

This text of Harvey v. Valenzuela (Harvey v. Valenzuela) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harvey v. Valenzuela, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 John Clayton Harvey, No. CV-25-01313-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Michael Valenzuela,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff John Clayton Harvey filed this suit against defendant Michael Valenzuela, 16 a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court. According to the complaint, Harvey was 17 involved in an unidentified matter pending before Judge Valenzuela. During that matter, 18 Judge Valenzuela allegedly denied Clayton “his 6th Amendment right to a fair trial” by not 19 admitting certain “evidence and records.” Judge Valenzuela also “stated in Court record 20 that [Harvey] committed fraud in his purchase of his home which is untrue.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) 21 Harvey seeks two million dollars in money damages. 22 The court may sua sponte dismiss claims when the plaintiff “cannot possibly win 23 relief.” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981). Harvey is attempting to assert 24 claims for money damages against Judge Valenzuela based on actions Judge Valenzuela 25 took in his judicial capacity during the proceedings in superior court. Judges are entitled to 26 absolute immunity from money damages. Burk v. State, 156 P.3d 423, 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 27 2007) (noting “judges are absolutely immune from damages lawsuits for their judicial 28 acts”); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (discussing “the immunity of judges from 1|| lability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction”). This case 2|| therefore must be dismissed in its entirety. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO || AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment to that effect and close this case. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2025. 9 10 é VY) ly Va n ry G. / ll AA ACA EY UC Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 John Clayton Harvey, No. CV-25-01313-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Michael Valenzuela,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff John Clayton Harvey filed this suit against defendant Michael Valenzuela, 16 a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court. According to the complaint, Harvey was 17 involved in an unidentified matter pending before Judge Valenzuela. During that matter, 18 Judge Valenzuela allegedly denied Clayton “his 6th Amendment right to a fair trial” by not 19 admitting certain “evidence and records.” Judge Valenzuela also “stated in Court record 20 that [Harvey] committed fraud in his purchase of his home which is untrue.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) 21 Harvey seeks two million dollars in money damages. 22 The court may sua sponte dismiss claims when the plaintiff “cannot possibly win 23 relief.” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981). Harvey is attempting to assert 24 claims for money damages against Judge Valenzuela based on actions Judge Valenzuela 25 took in his judicial capacity during the proceedings in superior court. Judges are entitled to 26 absolute immunity from money damages. Burk v. State, 156 P.3d 423, 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 27 2007) (noting “judges are absolutely immune from damages lawsuits for their judicial 28 acts”); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (discussing “the immunity of judges from 1|| lability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction”). This case 2|| therefore must be dismissed in its entirety. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO || AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment to that effect and close this case. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2025. 9 10 é VY) ly Va n ry G. / ll AA ACA EY UC Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harvey v. Valenzuela, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-valenzuela-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack