Austin v. Chesney

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 22-02506 WHA 12 v.

13 MAXINE CHESNEY, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 14 Defendant.

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 17 On May 23, 2022, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler filed a report and recommendation to 18 dismiss plaintiff’s action against United States District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney.

19 Plaintiff objected timely (Dkt. Nos. 10, 16). To the extent stated, this order ADOPTS Judge 20 Beeler’s report and recommendation and OVERRULES plaintiff’s objection.

21 An earlier order describes our facts (Dkt. No. 5). Briefly, pro se plaintiff sued defendant 22 federal judge for violating his constitutional rights by ruling against him in a separate and 23 ongoing action, Austin v. Lyft, Inc., No. C 21-09345 MMC (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 2, 2021).

24 Judge Beeler’s screening order and subsequent report and recommendation find that plaintiff 25 fails to state a claim because “[Judge Chesney] has judicial immunity” (Dkt. No. 5 at 5).

26 Plaintiff objects and asserts that defendant’s actions fall within an immunity exception (Dkt.

27 No. 16 at 1).

1 Specifically, plaintiff argues that defendant’s actions “constitute one of the precise 2 exceptions to Federal Judicial Immunity: Acting outside of Jurisdiction” (ibid.). Plaintiff 3 explains that defendant “improperly reassigned [Lyft] when [plaintiff] granted consent to 4 Magistrate and no one declined, yet [sic] case was reassigned (creating lack of Jurisdiction)” 5 and as a result, defendant “is currently acting in clear absence of Jurisdiction” (id. at 2).

6 Plaintiff misapprehends the exception.

7 Judges are immune from civil liability for acts performed in their judicial capacity.

8 Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 1996). Immunity may be overcome (1) 9 for “actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity” and (2) for actions “taken in the 10 complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991).

11 Defendant has not acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction with respect to an action 12 properly reassigned from a magistrate judge. As a January 25 order in the underlying Lyft 13 action details, reassignment was proper because consent of all named parties was and remains 14 a prerequisite to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. There, defendant Lyft had not consented.

3 15 Lyft, No. C 21-09345 MMC, Dkt. No. 51 at 3. So here, defendant judge had jurisdiction. a 16 Defendant’s judicial immunity is not abrogated by the jurisdictional exception. Plaintiff's 17 objection is consequently OVERRULED.

18 Furthermore, because no amendment would change the fact that plaintiffs claims are 19 asserted against a judicially immune defendant, the suit will be dismissed without leave to 20 amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

21 For the foregoing reasons, this order ADOPTS in full Judge Beeler’s report and 22 recommendation. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk shall close the file.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: June 10, 2022.

LA Pee 27 - ILLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE