Barbour v. Mollway
1:11-cv-00210
D. Haw.Apr 6, 2011Background
- Pro se prisoner Kenneth Barbour is incarcerated in Virginia and filed a prisoner civil rights complaint in Hawaii federal court.
- Barbour names Chief United States District Judge Susan Oki Mollway as the sole defendant.
- Barbour submitted an in forma pauperis application which the court denied.
- The court dismissed Barbour's complaint and action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous or failing to state a claim.
- The dismissal was with prejudice and without leave to amend; the court noted Barbour’s history of numerous frivolous filings.
- The Ninth Circuit had previously dismissed a related appeal for lack of perfection in filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Mollway is entitled to judicial immunity. | Barbour contends Mollway acted improperly in her official capacity. | Mollway acted as a judge within her official function and jurisdiction. | Judicial immunity applied; claims barred. |
| Whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted against a judge. | Barbour asserts actionable conduct by the judge. | Actions are protected by judicial immunity and lack state action against Barbour. | Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Whether amendment could cure the defects in Barbour's claims. | Potential amendments could state a valid claim. | Amendment would be futile given immunity and lack of jurisdictional basis. | Amendment would be futile; dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (judicial immunity extends to official acts regardless of motive)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1985) (limits on damages against judges; scope of immunity)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978) (immunity applies even when actions are in error or in excess of authority)
- Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996) (immunity extends to declaratory and injunctive relief against judges)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (opportunity to amend; en banc discussion on pleading standards)
- In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 366 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (criteria for distinguishing judicial acts from non-judicial acts)