Forsman v. Stahnke
3:16-cv-05949
W.D. Wash.Nov 17, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Justin Matthew Forsman, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) challenging a Clark County Superior Court judge’s denial of his petition to restore his right to bear arms.
- Forsman alleged Judge Daniel L. Stahnke refused to grant relief because doing so would require declaring RCW 9.41.040 unconstitutional.
- Plaintiff claimed constitutional violations arising from the judge’s conduct during the petition hearing and sought relief in federal court.
- The district court reviewed the complaint and Forsman’s IFP application and applied liberal construction for pro se pleadings.
- The court concluded all challenged acts were judicial and therefore barred by absolute judicial immunity, making the complaint frivolous and failing to state a claim.
- The court denied IFP, dismissed the case with prejudice, and instructed that future filings (other than a Notice of Appeal) be docketed but not acted upon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a claim against a judge for actions taken in court | Forsman argued Judge Stahnke acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in denying his petition to restore firearm rights | Judge Stahnke’s acts were judicial actions taken in his official capacity | Dismissed: judicial immunity bars the suit; complaint frivolous and fails to state a claim |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted to cure defects | Forsman implicitly seeks relief and could amend factual or legal theories | Judicial immunity is dispositive for the alleged acts, so amendment cannot cure the defect | Denied: amendment would be futile; no leave to amend |
| Whether IFP should be granted | Forsman reported minimal resources and sought waiver of filing fee | Court may deny IFP when the complaint is frivolous on its face | Denied: IFP denied because complaint is frivolous/without merit |
| Whether IFP should be allowed on appeal | Forsman could seek IFP for appeal | Court may preclude IFP where underlying claim is frivolous | Denied by district court without prejudice to apply to Ninth Circuit |
Key Cases Cited
- Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963) (district court has discretion to deny IFP)
- Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1988) (pro se complaints construed liberally)
- Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may dismiss sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) when relief cannot be granted)
- Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (court may dismiss frivolous complaints sua sponte)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (definition of frivolous complaint)
- In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognition of absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
- Olson v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004) (judges entitled to absolute immunity for actions within jurisdiction)
- Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998) (court may deny IFP where complaint is frivolous on its face)
- Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1987) (IFP may be denied for frivolous suits)
- Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se plaintiffs entitled to opportunity to amend unless amendment would be futile)