United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
David
G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge
On
August 30, 2019, Plaintiff Dino Bennetti, who is confined in
the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona,
filed a pro se Complaint and an Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. In a September 9, 2019 Order, the Court
granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the
Complaint because Plaintiff had not filed his Complaint on a
court-approved form, as required by Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 3.4. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to file
an amended complaint on a court-approved form. On September
23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8).
The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this
action.
I.
Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion
thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally
frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1)-(2).
A
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While
Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations,
“it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id.
“[A]
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Thus, although a plaintiff's specific factual allegations
may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must
assess whether there are other “more likely
explanations” for a defendant's conduct.
Id. at 681.
But as
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
instructed, courts must “continue to construe pro
se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed
by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.'” Id. (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).
If the
Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the
allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to
an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the
action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29
(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim,
without leave to amend because the defects cannot be
corrected. . . . .
II.
First Amended Complaint
In his
one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa
County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottfield and former
Maricopa County Clerk Michael K. Jeans.[1] Plaintiff alleges
his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated
based on “negligence/libel/and defamation.”
Plaintiff contends that on July 24, 2019, he received a
minute entry from the Clerk of Court stating that he had been
found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder Maricopa
County Superior Court cases CR2002-006108-A and
CR2002-010429-B, “per [Defendants] Gottfield and . . .
Jeans.” According to Plaintiff, the minute entry stated
that he had been sentenced to life without parole in both
cases based on a plea of (guilty).” Plaintiff asserts
that “[i]f this were true, then it was publish[ed] and
became public knowledge on or about July 1, 2005.”
Plaintiff
asserts that this is a “grave mistake” and
“‘libel'/‘defamation.'” He
claims that “[d]ue to these false charges and
sentences, and published notification to the public, ”
he has “los[t] (3) parole hearings, chances to [be]
parole[d] to [his] next term, or . . . absolute discharge on
[his] original case.” Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
and injunctive relief “ordering this error b[e] fixed[
and] taking it off the Plaintiff's record.”
III.
Failure to State a Claim
A.
Request for Monetary Damages
Judges
are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for
their judicial acts except when they are taken “in the
‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.'”
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)
(quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351
(1871)); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th
Cir. 1986). An act is “judicial” when it is a
function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt
with the judge in his or her judicial capacity.
Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. Maynard,
913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). This immunity attaches
even if the judge is accused of acting maliciously ...