Alonzo McKinney v. Unknown

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO MCKINNEY, ) NO. 21-CV-03658-JGB (KS)

) Plaintiff,

) v. )

) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

UNKNOWN, )

)

Defendant. ) _________________________________ )

On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a one- page document titled “citizen complaint or judicial intervention” against the “San Diego Court Clerk” in regards to “fees for state habeas writ.” (Dkt. No. 1.) The Clerk initially docketed the document as a habeas petition, but the Court, upon further review, determined that Plaintiff was not challenging the fact or duration of his custody and, therefore, had filed a civil rights complaint—not a habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 4.)

However, the Complaint identifies no specific constitutional violations and provides no specific statement of facts. The Complaint also appears to sue a court clerk, who is entitled to immunity from damages for civil rights violations for tasks that are integral to the judicial process. See Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 } (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 2031 (1988). For these reasons, the Complaint is subject to dismissal. See FED. R. CIv. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding and responding to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (Congress requires district courts to dismiss civil rights complaints brought by prisoners if the court determines that the complaint, or any portion thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).

Additionally, on May 6, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 4.) On May 14, 2021, after more than a week had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than June 4, 2021, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 5.)

On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Response in which he states that the matter is “not a civil complaint for Judge Stevenson,” but, rather, “for U.S. attorney office to investigate misconduct of clerk.” (Dkt. No. 6) (errors in original). In effect, Plaintiff concedes that the } matter should be dismissed so that he can address his concerns with the United States Attorney’s Office. Plaintiff certainly does not attempt to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to proceed IFP. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED.

DATED: June 17, 2021 noes

JESUS G. BERSAT UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

33 || Pace L: Bliensn

KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5