1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DIEU-MERCI LUBIBA, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00799-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - 11 FAMILY LAW DIVISION; HON. MARSHALL FERGUSON; KIESE 12 WILBURN; DOES 1-5,
13 Defendants. 14 15 1. INTRODUCTION 16 Pro se Plaintiff Dieu-Merci Lubiba pursues this action in forma pauperis 17 (IFP). Dkt. No. 12. When a plaintiff proceeds IFP, Section 1915 requires the Court 18 to dismiss the action if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which 19 relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On May 27, the Court reviewed 20 Lubiba’s complaint and found that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted because “the Anti-Injunction Act, Younger abstention, and Rooker-Feldman 22 preclude federal jurisdiction over Lubiba’s claims.” Dkt. No. 19. Rather than 23 dismissing the case, the Court granted Lubiba leave to amend the complaint. Id. 1 The Court also found that Lubiba’s motion to seal, Dkt. No. 14, was 2 procedurally and substantively deficient; yet rather than denying the motion and
3 thus lifting the provisional seal, the Court reserved judgment, left the provisional 4 seal in place, and ordered Lubiba to show cause why the sealed filings should 5 remain hidden from public view. Id. 6 On June 17, Lubiba filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 22; renewed 7 motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), Dkt. No. 24; and corrected motion to 8 seal, Dkt. No. 20. Upon review, the Court, being fully informed, finds that the
9 amended complaint does not rectify the defects identified in the previous complaint. 10 Because the Court concludes that further leave to amend would be futile, the Court 11 DISMISSES this action in its entirety under Section 1915. The renewed TRO 12 request is therefore DENIED. Dkt. No. 24. 13 As for the corrected motion to seal, the Court adopts Lubiba’s request for 14 leave to file redacted versions of his sealed filings and gives him FOURTEEN days 15 to do so. Until that time, the Court RESERVES decision on his motions to seal (Dkt.
16 Nos. 14, 20) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to maintain Lubiba’s filings under 17 provisional seal. If Lubiba does not timely file redacted versions of his filings, the 18 Court will lift the provisional seal and maintain only those filings under seal that 19 must remain sealed under LCR 5.2. 20 2. SECTION 1915 REVIEW 21 In its May 27 Order, the Court reviewed Lubiba’s initial complaint under
22 Section 1915 and found that it failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted 23 for at least three reasons: one, it seeks an injunction staying state-court proceedings 1 in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2283; second; it is subject to Younger abstention; and 2 third, it seeks federal review of interlocutory state-court decisions in violation of the
3 Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Dkt. No. 19 at 4–8, 11–12. 4 Lubiba’s amended complaint cures none of these defects. The complaint 5 makes conclusory assertions of law, asserting that Judge Ferguson’s procedural 6 rulings in Lubiba’s state case are unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities 7 Act (ADA) and U.S. Constitution. But the complaint offers no factual allegations to 8 support these conclusory assertions. Lubiba provides a small record of his
9 communications with the state court. See Dkt. No. 23 at 4–10. Upon review, the 10 Court finds that this record does not provide any evidence of procedural irregularity 11 in his state case. And conclusory assertions of law alone are insufficient to plausibly 12 state a claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 Even more to the point, Lubiba’s amended complaint does not address the 14 Court’s Younger analysis. The complaint—and the renewed TRO request—seek 15 injunctive relief to block the enforcement of procedural rulings in Lubiba’s state
16 family-court proceeding. As explained previously, such federal intervention in an 17 ongoing state case is generally impermissible. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 18 (1971). And Lubiba provides no evidence or even allegations to persuade the Court 19 that his state-court proceeding is being “conducted in bad faith or to harass the 20 litigant” such that an exception to Younger abstention might apply. See Cornell v. 21 Off. of Dist. Att’y, Cnty. of Riverside, 616 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2022).
22 Additionally, just as Younger abstention forbids the injunctive relief sought 23 in Lubiba’s complaint, immunity doctrines preclude his claims for monetary relief. 1 Lubiba sues the family court, the family-court judge, and the judicial bailiff for 2 monetary damages stemming from allegedly unlawful rulings. All these defendants
3 are immune from Lubiba’s damages claims. 4 First, “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or 5 injunctive relief against a state, an ‘arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its 6 agencies.” Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995). A local court, 7 such as Defendant King County Superior Court, is considered an “arm of the state” 8 and therefore protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id.
9 Likewise, under the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, judges are 10 immune from monetary liability for acts—even gravely erroneous acts—performed 11 in their judicial capacities. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). This 12 doctrine precludes Lubiba’s damages claims against Judge Ferguson, which stem 13 from his official rulings. 14 Similarly, the common-law doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity immunizes 15 non-jurists “who perform functions closely associated with the judicial process” from
16 monetary liability for quasi-judicial acts. In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 17 2002), as amended (Sept. 6, 2002). Lubiba’s monetary damages claim against Judge 18 Ferguson’s judicial bailiff, Defendant Kiese Wilburn, does not survive Wilburn’s 19 quasi-judicial immunity. 20 In sum, because Lubiba states no claim on which relief can be granted, the 21 Court FINDS that the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety under 28 U.S.C. §
22 1915(e)(2)(B). 23 1 3. MOTION TO SEAL 2 Before dispensing with this matter, the Court must also address Lubiba’s
3 motions to seal. Dkt. Nos. 14, 20. In its previous Order, the Court found that 4 Lubiba’s motion to seal at Dkt. No. 14 was procedurally and substantively defective. 5 See Dkt. No. 19 at 10. The Court explained that it “sees no problem with Lubiba’s 6 request to maintain the privacy of his medical and ADA-related information; 7 references to his minor child; materials describing his financial situation; and 8 materials describing trauma and harm.” Id. But the Court noted that “by seeking to
9 maintain the secrecy of his contact information—and then including that contact 10 information on every page of his filings—Lubiba has rendered this entire case 11 invisible to the public.” Id. 12 Rather than denying the motion to seal and thereby exposing Lubiba’s 13 personal information to public view, the Court ordered Lubiba, within twenty-one 14 days, to “(1) submit redacted versions of his filings; (2) file an amended motion to 15 seal that does not seek to maintain his contact information under seal; or (3) show
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DIEU-MERCI LUBIBA, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00799-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - 11 FAMILY LAW DIVISION; HON. MARSHALL FERGUSON; KIESE 12 WILBURN; DOES 1-5,
13 Defendants. 14 15 1. INTRODUCTION 16 Pro se Plaintiff Dieu-Merci Lubiba pursues this action in forma pauperis 17 (IFP). Dkt. No. 12. When a plaintiff proceeds IFP, Section 1915 requires the Court 18 to dismiss the action if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which 19 relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On May 27, the Court reviewed 20 Lubiba’s complaint and found that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted because “the Anti-Injunction Act, Younger abstention, and Rooker-Feldman 22 preclude federal jurisdiction over Lubiba’s claims.” Dkt. No. 19. Rather than 23 dismissing the case, the Court granted Lubiba leave to amend the complaint. Id. 1 The Court also found that Lubiba’s motion to seal, Dkt. No. 14, was 2 procedurally and substantively deficient; yet rather than denying the motion and
3 thus lifting the provisional seal, the Court reserved judgment, left the provisional 4 seal in place, and ordered Lubiba to show cause why the sealed filings should 5 remain hidden from public view. Id. 6 On June 17, Lubiba filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 22; renewed 7 motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), Dkt. No. 24; and corrected motion to 8 seal, Dkt. No. 20. Upon review, the Court, being fully informed, finds that the
9 amended complaint does not rectify the defects identified in the previous complaint. 10 Because the Court concludes that further leave to amend would be futile, the Court 11 DISMISSES this action in its entirety under Section 1915. The renewed TRO 12 request is therefore DENIED. Dkt. No. 24. 13 As for the corrected motion to seal, the Court adopts Lubiba’s request for 14 leave to file redacted versions of his sealed filings and gives him FOURTEEN days 15 to do so. Until that time, the Court RESERVES decision on his motions to seal (Dkt.
16 Nos. 14, 20) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to maintain Lubiba’s filings under 17 provisional seal. If Lubiba does not timely file redacted versions of his filings, the 18 Court will lift the provisional seal and maintain only those filings under seal that 19 must remain sealed under LCR 5.2. 20 2. SECTION 1915 REVIEW 21 In its May 27 Order, the Court reviewed Lubiba’s initial complaint under
22 Section 1915 and found that it failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted 23 for at least three reasons: one, it seeks an injunction staying state-court proceedings 1 in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2283; second; it is subject to Younger abstention; and 2 third, it seeks federal review of interlocutory state-court decisions in violation of the
3 Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Dkt. No. 19 at 4–8, 11–12. 4 Lubiba’s amended complaint cures none of these defects. The complaint 5 makes conclusory assertions of law, asserting that Judge Ferguson’s procedural 6 rulings in Lubiba’s state case are unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities 7 Act (ADA) and U.S. Constitution. But the complaint offers no factual allegations to 8 support these conclusory assertions. Lubiba provides a small record of his
9 communications with the state court. See Dkt. No. 23 at 4–10. Upon review, the 10 Court finds that this record does not provide any evidence of procedural irregularity 11 in his state case. And conclusory assertions of law alone are insufficient to plausibly 12 state a claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 Even more to the point, Lubiba’s amended complaint does not address the 14 Court’s Younger analysis. The complaint—and the renewed TRO request—seek 15 injunctive relief to block the enforcement of procedural rulings in Lubiba’s state
16 family-court proceeding. As explained previously, such federal intervention in an 17 ongoing state case is generally impermissible. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 18 (1971). And Lubiba provides no evidence or even allegations to persuade the Court 19 that his state-court proceeding is being “conducted in bad faith or to harass the 20 litigant” such that an exception to Younger abstention might apply. See Cornell v. 21 Off. of Dist. Att’y, Cnty. of Riverside, 616 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2022).
22 Additionally, just as Younger abstention forbids the injunctive relief sought 23 in Lubiba’s complaint, immunity doctrines preclude his claims for monetary relief. 1 Lubiba sues the family court, the family-court judge, and the judicial bailiff for 2 monetary damages stemming from allegedly unlawful rulings. All these defendants
3 are immune from Lubiba’s damages claims. 4 First, “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or 5 injunctive relief against a state, an ‘arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its 6 agencies.” Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995). A local court, 7 such as Defendant King County Superior Court, is considered an “arm of the state” 8 and therefore protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id.
9 Likewise, under the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, judges are 10 immune from monetary liability for acts—even gravely erroneous acts—performed 11 in their judicial capacities. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). This 12 doctrine precludes Lubiba’s damages claims against Judge Ferguson, which stem 13 from his official rulings. 14 Similarly, the common-law doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity immunizes 15 non-jurists “who perform functions closely associated with the judicial process” from
16 monetary liability for quasi-judicial acts. In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 17 2002), as amended (Sept. 6, 2002). Lubiba’s monetary damages claim against Judge 18 Ferguson’s judicial bailiff, Defendant Kiese Wilburn, does not survive Wilburn’s 19 quasi-judicial immunity. 20 In sum, because Lubiba states no claim on which relief can be granted, the 21 Court FINDS that the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety under 28 U.S.C. §
22 1915(e)(2)(B). 23 1 3. MOTION TO SEAL 2 Before dispensing with this matter, the Court must also address Lubiba’s
3 motions to seal. Dkt. Nos. 14, 20. In its previous Order, the Court found that 4 Lubiba’s motion to seal at Dkt. No. 14 was procedurally and substantively defective. 5 See Dkt. No. 19 at 10. The Court explained that it “sees no problem with Lubiba’s 6 request to maintain the privacy of his medical and ADA-related information; 7 references to his minor child; materials describing his financial situation; and 8 materials describing trauma and harm.” Id. But the Court noted that “by seeking to
9 maintain the secrecy of his contact information—and then including that contact 10 information on every page of his filings—Lubiba has rendered this entire case 11 invisible to the public.” Id. 12 Rather than denying the motion to seal and thereby exposing Lubiba’s 13 personal information to public view, the Court ordered Lubiba, within twenty-one 14 days, to “(1) submit redacted versions of his filings; (2) file an amended motion to 15 seal that does not seek to maintain his contact information under seal; or (3) show
16 cause as to why the materials presently under provisional seal should remain 17 sealed while the motion to seal is pending.” Id. at 13. 18 In Lubiba’s corrected motion to seal, Lubiba asks the Court to (1) “permit the 19 sealing of previously submitted documents” and (2) “allow Plaintiff to file amended 20 redacted versions of those same documents by next week (on or before June 24, 21 2025), with protected information removed.” Dkt. No. 20 at 1. For now, this proposal
22 is acceptable. The Court RESERVES decision on Lubiba’s motions to seal, Dkt. Nos. 23 14, 20, and ORDERS Lubiba, within FOURTEEN (14) days of this Order, to: 1 1. Provide a comprehensive list of previously submitted filings that 2 Lubiba requests to remain under seal, along with reasons for sealing;
3 and 4 2. For all such filings, file redacted versions with protected information 5 removed. 6 Given the strong presumption of public access to court records, if Lubiba fails 7 to comply with this Order, the Court will lift the provisional seal that is currently 8 blocking Lubiba’s filings from public view. At that point, the Court will direct the
9 Clerk of Court to unseal all filings that do not merit sealing under LCR 5.2. 10 4. CONCLUSION 11 The Court FINDS that pro se IFP Plaintiff Dieu-Merci Lubiba’s complaint 12 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because this failure cannot 13 be cured by further leave to amend, the Court DISMISSES this action in its entirety 14 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Lubiba’s renewed TRO request is DENIED. Dkt. 15 No. 24. The Court RESERVES decision on Lubiba’s motions to seal, Dkt. Nos. 14,
16 20, and GRANTS Lubiba leave, within FOURTEEN (14) days of this Order, to file 17 redacted versions of all sealed documents and a comprehensive list of filings to 18 which Lubiba’s motion to seal applies. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to 19 ENTER JUDGMENT and close this case. 20 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2025. 21 a Jamal N. Whitehead 22 United States District Judge 23