Durham v. Schmidt

— 1 — — 2 — FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON — 3 — Nov 29, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON — 6 — 7 JOHN-MICHAEL RAY DURHAM, NO: 2:24-CV-0325-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS 10 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, CITY AND COUNTY OF SPOKANE, 11 SPOKANE SUPERIOR COURTJUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION, & 12 CASA, et al., 13 Defendants. — 14 — 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 7. 16 This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. Plaintiff has 17 not responded to the Motion to Dismiss, timely or otherwise. The Court has 18 reviewed the briefing and the record and the files herein and is fully informed. For 19 the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is 20 GRANTED. 1 Plaintiff, John-Michael Ray Durham (“Durham”), proceeding pro se, filed a 2 complaint September 23, 2024, against Defendants alleging constitutional 3 violations related an adverse dependency ruling in Superior Court State of 4 Washington. ECF No. 1. Rather than pursue a direct appeal or motion to 5 terminate the dependency order in Washington state courts, Plaintiff seeks a de 6 facto appeal of the dependency ruling in the federal court alleging various civil tort 7 claims for damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. 8 “[A] federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a 9 direct appeal from the final judgment of state court”; such matters are barred by the 10 Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir 2003). If a 11 federal court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the 12 action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 13 Plaintiff has not shown that this Court has jurisdiction over any of the named 14 Defendants. Furthermore, Judges are absolutely immune from civil damages suits 15 for acts performed within their judicial capacity. See, e.g., Taggart v. State, 118 16 Wn.2d 195, 203 (1992). Court clerks and others who carry out the judges direction 17 are also immune. 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma 19 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The 20 good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v. 2|| United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , an 3|| appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 US. 319, 325 (1989). 5 The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good 6|| faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the Court 7\| hereby revokes Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status. 8 || ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 10 2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 11 3. Plaintiffs’ pending motions before the Court are DENIED as moot. 12 4. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. 13 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, furnish copies to the parties, enter judgment for Defendants, and CLOSE the file. 15 Dated November 29, 2024. eS es ot - 18 Say rie & THOMAS O. RICE 19 Tres United States District Judge — 20 —