Stewart v. Geissler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JAMES STEWART, CASE NO. C19-5620 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 V. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S || FRANCIS GEISSLER, et al., MOTION TO DISMISS 11 Defendants.

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff James Stewart’s (“Stewart”) || motion for a new trial, Dkt. 7, and Defendant Bryan Chushcoff’s (“Judge Chushcoff’) || motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Dkt. 10.! The Court has considered the || pleadings filed in support of the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies || the motion for a new trial and grants the motion to dismiss for the reasons stated herein.”

' Stewart’s complaint lists Bryan “Cushcoff.” Dkt. 1. The Court uses the spelling in || Judge Chuschcoff’s motion. Dkt. 10. Judge Chuschoff serves on the Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington. /d. at 1.

22 No pleadings were filed in opposition to either motion.

1 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On July 8, 2019, Stewart filed a complaint against Defendants Dr. Francis || Geissler, Franciscan Hospital, Judge Bryan Chushcoff, Marti J. McCaleb, Floyd, Phluger || & Ringer, and Amber L. Pearce. Dkt. 1.

5 On August 13, 2019, Stewart filed a motion for a new trial. Dkt. 4. On October 8, 2019, the Court denied the motion, finding that Stewart had failed to provide any || authority for his position that the Court should order a new trial. Dkt. 6.

8 On January 24, 2020, Stewart filed a second motion for new trial. Dkt. 7.

9 On March 24, 2020, Judge Chushcoff filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state |}aclaim. Dkt. 10. Stewart did not respond. On April 16, 2020, Judge Chushcoff replied.

11 || Dkt. 11.

12 Il. DISCUSSION ||A. Motion for a New Trial 14 As stated in the Court’s prior order denying Stewart’s motion for a new trial, || Stewart has filed an earlier suit in this court seeking a new trial based on the same set of || facts. Dkt. 6. After the Court struck Stewart’s motions in that case and directed him not to || file any further pleadings, see Stewart v. McCaleb, C18-5407BHS (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 1g 2019), Stewart filed his complaint in the instant case.

19 Stewart’s latest motion again fails to provide any authority for his position that the || Court should order a new trial. As the Court explained in Stewart’s prior case, “there was || mo original trial in this Court such that the Stewarts can identify errors that may or could || be corrected by granting a new trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. To the extent the Stewarts || request that this Court order a new civil trial in state court, they provide absolutely no || authority for such a drastic remedy of a federal court ordering a state court to rehear a || civil trial.” Stewart, C18-5407BHS (W.D. Wash. Oct. 22, 2018). The Court denies || Stewart’s current motion for a new trial for the same reasons.

5 || B. Motion to Dismiss 6 Judge Chushcoff moves to dismiss arguing that Stewart’s claims against him are || barred by both res judicata and judicial immunity. Dkt. 10. The Court agrees with both || arguments. Further, Stewart did not respond to the motion, which the Court may construe 9 an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2).

10 In this case, as in the prior case, all of Stewart’s allegations against Judge || Chuschcoff appear to arise out of Judge Chuschcoff’s adverse rulings against Stewart in || his judicial capacity in the underlying state court litigation. As the Court found in the || previous suit, Judge Chuschcoff is entitled to judicial immunity for actions taken in his 14 judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (“A judge is absolutely |}immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by || the commission of grave procedural errors.”); Stewart, C18-5407BHS (W.D. Wash. Aug.

17 || 15, 2018). Even Stewart’s apparently new (and speculative) allegations that Judge || Chushcoff was offered a bribe do not change that finding.’ “To foreclose immunity upon || allegations that judicial and prosecutorial decisions were conditioned upon a conspiracy The complaint states “What did Judge Chushcoff have to gain by Filing a False Suit || against against [sic] the Plaintiff? The only thing that James can think of, is that Judge Chuschoff was offered a large bribe by Dr. Geissler and that the offer was Probably In [sic] the || neighborhood of 20 million dollars.” Dkt. 1 at 5.

1 || or bribery serves to defeat” the policies underlying broad judicial and prosecutorial ||immunity. Ashelman vy. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986). “As long as the ||judge’s ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, immunity applies.” Jd.

5 Moreover, Stewart’s claims against Judge Chuschoff are barred by res judicata.

6 || Res judicata “bars all grounds for recovery that could have been asserted, whether they || were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.” Siegel || v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 143 F.3d 525, 528-29 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal || quotation omitted). The doctrine is applicable whenever there is “(1) an identity of || claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or privity between parties.”

11 || Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997). Regarding 12 first factor, even if Stewart’s allegation that Judge Chuschoff “[filed] a [f]alse [s]uit” || against him 1s construed as referring to some action outside his judicial rulings, Stewart’s || current claims are the same and are based on the same nucleus of facts as the previous || action—the state court resolution of his medical malpractice claim as a deprivation of due || process. Regarding the second and third factors, this Court previously entered a final ||judgment on the merits addressing Stewart’s claims against Judge Chuschoff. Stewart, ||C18-5407BHS (W.D. Wash. Aug. 15, 2018). Therefore, the Court grants Judge || Chuschoff’s motion to dismiss because Stewart’s claims against Judge Chuschoff are || barred as a matter of law.

21 The legal shortcomings of Plaintiffs’ claim are not a matter that can be resolved by ||amendment. Garmon v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A || district court abuses its discretion by denying leave to amend unless amendment would || be futile or the plaintiff has failed to cure the complaint’s deficiencies despite repeated || opportunities.””). Because amendment would be futile, Stewart’s claims against Judge || Chuschoff are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

5 ORDER 6 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Stewart’s motion for a new trial, Dkt. 7, is ||DENIED, Judge Chushcoff’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 10, is GRANTED, and Stewart’s || claims against Judge Chuschoff are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk shall || terminate Judge Chuschoff as a defendant.

10 Dated this 23rd day of April, 2020.

3 B MIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge