Seifert v. Pritchard

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDRA SEIFERT, Case No. 1:24-cv-01097-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 KENNETH GEORGE PRITCHARD, et al., (Doc. 19) 15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Plaintiff Alexandra Seifert, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 19 §§ 241 and 242, 18 U.S.C. § 1018, 28 U.S.C. § 454, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Doc. 1. On 20 November 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 21 dismiss the complaint without leave to amend because plaintiff failed to plead any cognizable 22 claims. Doc. 8. On March 7, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge vacated the prior findings and 23 recommendations and issued new findings and recommendations. Doc. 19. Following service on 24 plaintiff of those findings and recommendations and the partial grant of plaintiff’s request for 25 extension of time to file objections (Doc. 21), plaintiff filed numerous motions and objections, 26 including a motion to recuse and disqualify the magistrate judge (Doc. 26). The magistrate judge, 27 thereafter, denied the motion to recuse and disqualify.1 Doc. 31. 1 The findings and recommendations (Doc. 19) are substantially similar to the original, 2 since vacated findings and recommendations, to which plaintiff objected. In the findings and 3 recommendations, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff could not seek relief pursuant 4 to certain federal criminal statutes cited in her complaint (id. at 6-7), that plaintiff’s claims 5 seeking relief from state court orders were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the 6 extrinsic fraud exception did not apply (id. at 7-9), that defendants are immune from suit in 7 federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and the common law doctrine of judicial immunity 8 (id. at 10-11), and that leave to amend would be futile (id. at 11). 9 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff. Doc. 19. Plaintiff’s deadline 10 to file objections was extended to April 21, 2025. Doc. 21. Plaintiff filed untimely objections on 11 May 21, 2025, and a notice of errata to the objections on June 4, 2025. Docs. 30, 32. In her 12 objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff disputes the magistrate judge’s 13 authority to issue the findings and recommendations screening her complaint, challenges the 14 recommendation that the claims be dismissed and that the dismissal be without leave to amend, 15 and argues that the findings and recommendations incorrectly interpret case law and the 16 Constitution and misapply judicial immunity. See Doc. 30. 17 Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 18 case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections and notice of errata, the 19 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 20 The objections and notice of errata do not call into question the magistrate judge’s conclusions. 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a case if the action is 22 (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks 23 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); see 24 also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in 25 forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). “Courts perform a preliminary

26 assigned magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 27), and plaintiff’s objections 27 to the findings and recommendations, which also question the magistrate judge’s actions. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. 27) that there is no basis for recusal or 1 || screening to determine whether complaints brought by self-represented litigants and litigants 2 || proceeding in forma pauperis raise cognizable claims.” Belknap v. Alphabet, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 3 | 3d 1156, 1158 (D. Or. 2020). The Court referred this action to the magistrate judge for screening 4 | to determine whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim. As such, the magistrate judge had 5 | authority to screen plaintiff's complaint and issue findings and recommendations. The magistrate 6 || judge correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and that, as the 7 || deficiencies are not curable, leave to amend would be futile. 8 Accordingly: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 7, 2025 (Doc. 19), are 10 ADOPTED IN FULL; 11 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to CLOSE 13 this case. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 17 Dated: _ July 9, 2025 4h : ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28