Harvey v. Valenzuela

Opinion

WO

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

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Michael Valenzuela,

Defendant. Plaintiff John Clayton Harvey filed this suit against defendant Michael Valenzuela, a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court. According to the complaint, Harvey was involved in an unidentified matter pending before Judge Valenzuela. During that matter, Judge Valenzuela allegedly denied Clayton “his 6th Amendment right to a fair trial” by not admitting certain “evidence and records.” Judge Valenzuela also “stated in Court record that [Harvey] committed fraud in his purchase of his home which is untrue.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Harvey seeks two million dollars in money damages. The court may sua sponte dismiss claims when the plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981). Harvey is attempting to assert claims for money damages against Judge Valenzuela based on actions Judge Valenzuela took in his judicial capacity during the proceedings in superior court. Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from money damages. Burk v. State, 156 P.3d 423, 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (noting “judges are absolutely immune from damages lawsuits for their judicial 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 therefore must be dismissed in its entirety. Accordingly, 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated this 22nd day of April, 2025. é VY) ly Va n ry G. / ll AA ACA EY UC Honorable Krissa M. Lanham United States District Judge

_2-