1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 SIMON THORNTON, Case No. 21-cv-03661-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 6 Dkt. No. 3 7 ANN MOORMAN, Defendant. 8

9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 Plaintiff Simon Thornton alleges Ann Moorman, the California state court judge who 12 presided over his criminal trial, issued a ruling that violated his constitutional rights. His 42

complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED. State court judges are 15 absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for actions performed in their judicial capacity. 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 18 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 19 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 20 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 21 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 22 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 23 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 24 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 25 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 26 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial 27 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 1 || Twombly,

). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 2 || conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 3 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

, 754-55 4 |} (9th Cir. 1994). 5 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 || elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 || violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 || color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 9 DISCUSSION 10 Thornton alleges that state court judge Ann Moorman, who presided over his 11 || criminal trial in Mendocino County, issued a ruling during his trial that violated his 2 constitutional rights. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 5 at 2-3.)! Such a claim cannot proceed. A 5 13 || state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in his S 14 || or her judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray,

(1967); Duvall v. 3 15 || County of Kitsap,

(9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, this federal civil a 16 || rights action will be dismissed. 17 CONCLUSION 18 This federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall terminate all pending 19 || motions, enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: September 22, 2021 , ( . KYQe 22 LLIAM H. ORRICK 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Thornton’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 3.)