(PC) Washington v. Thurston

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00254-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 JENNIFER THURSTON, et al., Doc. 9 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Nathaniel Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 on his original complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1, 6. The matter was referred 19 to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 19, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 21 dismiss plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief could 22 be granted. Doc. 9. Specifically, the findings and recommendations conclude that Judge 23 Thurston enjoys judicial immunity for her judicial act of denying plaintiff’s habeas petition, and 24 separately, that plaintiff’s conspiracy claims are “wholly conclusory and insufficient to support a 25 § 1983 claim [and] are completely frivolous.” Id. at 5-7. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the 26 findings and recommendations. Doc. 13. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 28 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 1 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s 2 objections do not undermine the analysis of the findings and recommendations; indeed, they do 3 not address any of the reasoning in the findings and recommendations. Rather, they purport to 4 assert new facts to support plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy, including alleging that a lawyer in the 5 Kern County Public Defender’s Office told plaintiff more than five years ago that he “was being 6 harassed and followed around everywhere that [he] went” and that Defendant Humphrey, a Kern 7 County superior court judge “followed [him] around on at least three different occasions.” Doc. 8 13 at 1-2. Even assuming these newly alleged facts were true, plaintiff continues to fail to state a 9 claim against Judge Thurston or any other named defendant for his conspiracy claims. 10 A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted 11 action, intend to accomplish some unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another, which 12 results in damage. Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff 13 claims a conspiracy existed between Judge Thurston and the other named defendants to cover up 14 alleged previous conspiracies to falsely convict plaintiff and to torture him in prison. See 15 generally Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s new allegations provide no factual support to indicate that any 16 conspiracy plausibly existed between the named defendants. Nor do plaintiff’s objections 17 indicate that he could plausibly allege further facts to support his claim if plaintiff were given 18 leave to amend. Even more, as the magistrate judge correctly noted, plaintiff’s claims against the 19 principal defendant, Judge Thurston,1 are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity because the 20 complaint seeks to challenge her judicial act of ruling on his habeas petition. Id. at 5-6. 21 Plaintiff also requests “an extended time period to obtain evidence” regarding the alleged 22 conspiracy and subpoenas that he can send to the Kern County District Attorney’s Office because 23 1 As the findings and recommendations note, though the complaint names several people as 24 defendants, only Judge Thurston and Judge Humphrey are explicitly named in the body of the complaint. See Doc. 9 at 7; see generally Doc. 1. The only “exceptions” to this being the 25 complaint’s allegations that “Judge Jennifer Thurston . . . may have acted in conspiracy with the other defendants named in order to cover-up conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to rape and 26 torture” and that “she informally communicated with other co-conspirators.” Doc. 1 (emphasis 27 added). However, the first statement is conclusory and clearly does not meet the plausibility standard set forth in Iqbal and Twombly and the second is not factually sufficient to state a claim 28 for conspiracy against Judge Thurston or any other named defendant. 1 | he has “strong reason to believe” Judge Thurston was engaged in a conspiracy with others. Doc. 2 | 13 at 2-3. However, plaintiff is not entitled to discovery to attempt to remedy a facially deficient 3 | complaint; a plaintiff “must satisfy the pleading requirements of [Federal Rule of Civil 4 | Procedure] 8 before the discovery stage, not after it.” See Mujica v. AirScan, Inc., 771 F.3d 580, 5 | 593 n.7 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original). 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on April 19, 2024, Doc. 9, are ADOPTED IN 8 FULL; 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim; 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ December 19, 2024 4h 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28