1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 PETER NGUYEN, Case No.: 22-cv-1504-CAB-AGS

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 10 v. DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AS MOOT JUDGE, 12 Defendants. 13 [Doc. No. 2] 14 15 On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff Peter Nguyen filed a complaint that purports to state a 16 claim for “violation of

,” but in reality appears to be little more than a 17 misguided appeal of a Tulare County Superior Court’s decision finding him guilty of a 18 vehicular speeding violation. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28

(a) at the time of filing; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 20 Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a). [Doc. No. 2.] 21 A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to

1915(a) is subject to sua sponte dismissal if it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to 23 state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 24 defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 25

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not 26 limited to prisoners.”); see also Chavez v. Robinson,

(9th Cir. 27 2016) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates dismissal—even if dismissal comes before 28 the defendants are served”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose 1 || filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an 2 ||economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” 3 || Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)). 5 Here, Plaintiff brings suit for monetary damages against an unnamed judge of the 6 || Superior Court of Tulare County. [Doc. No. 1.] However, “[j]udges and those performing 7 || judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in 8 || their official capacities.” Ashelman v. Pope,

(9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). 9 || Moreover, because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his 10 || conviction for speeding, Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994), bars Plaintiff 11 bringing his § 1983 claim until his conviction is overturned. See Cabrera v. City of 12 || Huntington Park,

(9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Finally, Plaintiff lives in 13 || Garden Grove, California, while Defendant is in Tulare County, California, and the events 14 || alleged in the complaint did not occur in this district, so even if Plaintiff could somehow 15 || overcome the other hurdles to state a claim that is properly in federal court, venue is not 16 || properly in this district. 17 In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED 18 || pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(G)-(ii1), and the application to proceed in forma 19 || pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. No further 20 || filings will be accepted. 21 It is SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: October 5, 2022 € 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28