Monique Epperson v. District Judge Matthew Harter, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01613
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 MONIQUE EPPERSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01613-RFB-MDC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 DISTRICT JUDGE MATTHEW HARTER, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable 14 Cam Ferenbach, former United States Magistrate Judge, entered on June 2, 2022.1 ECF No. 15. 15 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by June 16, 2022. On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff 16 filed an objection. ECF No. 16. For the following reasons, the Court rejects the objection and 17 accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in full. 18 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific 22 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 25 findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local 26 Rule IB 3-2(b). 27 28 1 Due to an administrative error during the pandemic, there was a delay in the court reviewing this Report and Recommendation. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation recommends that this action be 3 dismissed. The Report finds that all of Plaintiff’s claims are related to Judge Harter’s actions of 4 “conspiring” with court personnel and other defendants during a judicial proceeding, which 5 requires judicial immunity. In Plaintiff’s timely filed objection, she argues that the defendants are 6 not entitled to judicial immunity; that she has exhausted state court relief; and that the court- 7 appointed evaluators are not entitled to judicial immunity. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants 8 conspired to remove minor children from the Plaintiff’s care so that the children’s father would no 9 longer be required to provide child support. 10 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and finds 11 that Plaintiff has not raised an appropriate or adequate legal objection to the Magistrate Judge’s 12 holdings. Accordingly, the Court rejects the objection and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s 13 findings, reasoning, and recommendation. 14 It is well settled that judges are generally immune from suit for money damages. Duvall v. 15 Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001). Judicial immunity ensures that challenges 16 to judicial rulings are funneled through more efficient channels for review like the appellate 17 process. Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2021). It is a general principle of the highest 18 importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority 19 vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal 20 consequences to himself. Id. (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347 (1871)). Additionally, 21 court personnel have absolute immunity for damages for civil rights violations when they perform 22 tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process. See Moore v. Cty. of Butte, 547 F. App'x 826 23 (9th Cir. 2013); Kukes v. Vandervoort, No. 89-16280, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3469 (9th Cir. Feb. 24 28, 1991). 25 In addition, it is well-settled that federal district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction 26 over a state court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, or otherwise. See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 27 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003); Demos v. United States District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 28 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a 1 | state court). 2 Thus, the Court finds no grounds to grant Plaintiff's Objection. 3 Wl. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and ° Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. ° IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 10 DATED: November 25, 2025.

2 CVS B RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-