Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-832 Section "K" (1)
May 14, 2001
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of pro se and in forma pauperis plaintiff Bill Stephens' Motion for Change of Venue (doc. 3). Plaintiff's motion is rather incongruous in nature as it prays that the instant matter either (1) be adjudicated in the Eastern District of Louisiana, where suit was filed, or (2) be transferred to any other district. Upon consideration of the materials submitted by plaintiff and a review of the relevant law, the Court finds plaintiff's delusions of persecution insufficient to state a cause of action. As such the Court shall sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Background
The gravamen of plaintiff's most recent complaint is that the ubiquity of judicial corruption has resulted in the unfavorable disposition of more than 20 complaints, motions and appeals filed by plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, respectively. Plaintiff styles his complaint "Complaint Filed Under Racketeering Enterprise Section." Presumably, plaintiff refers to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968. According to the complaint, individual judges "are guilty of maleficent [sic] in office, conspiracy, forgery (federal documents), purgery,[sic] obstruction of justice and subornation of all theses crimes." Plaintiff states that the actions of the defendants "prevented me from exorcising [sic] . . . my civil rights."
Discussion
It is well established that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998); First Gibraltar Bank v. Smith, 62 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 1995); Shawnee International v. Hondo Drilling Co., 742 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1984); Goosman v. Foti, 2000 WL 423902 (E.D. La. 4/18/00); Texas Carpenters Health Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 21 F. Supp.2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 1998). Thus, "[e]ven if a party does not make a formal motion, the court on its own initiative may note the inadequacy of the complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim as long as the procedure employed is fair." Wright Miller,Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1357, p. 301. The Fifth Circuit has stated that fairness is achieved when the plaintiff is given an opportunity to amend, unless the plaintiff has alleged his best case, or if the dismissal was without prejudice. Bazrowx, 136 F.3d at 1054.
Plaintiff makes no specific allegations with respect to the grave accusations of fraud and conspiracy. At most, he pleads that (1) several district judge's and appellate panels dismissed his oft filed lawsuits; (2) one judge recused herself from hearing one of plaintiff's claims; (3) that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request for a change of venue (said request was made with a request for en banc hearing) with respect to one of his appeals; (4) that 14 judges were in error and made mistakes in every action brought by plaintiff and (5) that the various courts took too long to render opinions.
With respect to his suit against the many judges that he has come into contact with over the course of the last eight years, plaintiff fails to state a cause of action. His complaint does not allege a Rico person, a pattern of racketeering activity or an enterprise. See Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 204 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, not only are his allegations nonsensical and frivolous, they fail to take cognizance of the absolute judicial immunity. Indeed, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated,
It is well established that judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217-18, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction.'" Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall (80 U.S.) 335, 351, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)). This broad scope of immunity is afforded to judges for actions taken within their jurisdiction because their role in the judicial system requires that they enjoy freedom to determine the law unfettered by the threat of collateral attacks against the judge personally. Absolute judicial immunity is justified "by the long-settled understanding that the independent and impartial exercise of judgment vital to the judiciary might be impaired by exposure to potential damages liability." Antoine v. Byers Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435, 113 S.Ct. 2167, 2171, 124 L.Ed.2d 391 (1993).Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th Cir. 1996). If anything is obvious from the face of plaintiff's complaint, it is that he is bringing suit against judge's for decisions made in the course of judicial proceedings. As such, all defendant's are entitled to absolute immunity and there is no need to expend further time or resources on this matter. The Court is confident that, to the extent the complaint reflects plaintiff's "best case", opportunity to amend would be futile. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.