Goodin v. Laporte
2:24-cv-02156
D. Nev.Nov 26, 2024Background
- Pro se plaintiffs Lance Goodin and Justin Fanty filed a complaint in the District of Nevada alleging perjury, mail theft, and defamation against several defendants, including Judge David Brown.
- Plaintiffs sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), submitting only a single IFP application for both.
- The underlying dispute appears to arise from an eviction case overseen by Judge David Brown.
- The court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to determine if it stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Plaintiffs invoked 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury), 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (mail theft), and 28 U.S.C. § 4101 (defamation) as bases for their claims.
- The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to dismiss the complaint in its entirety without leave to amend and to deny the IFP application as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity for Judge Brown | Judge Brown liable for eviction acts | Not explicitly stated; implied immunity | Judicial immunity bars all claims against Judge Brown |
| Private right of action under federal criminal statutes | Entitled to sue under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 1708 | Not explicit; court addressed legal standard | No private cause of action under these statutes |
| Federal jurisdiction for defamation claim | Cites 28 U.S.C. § 4101 for slander | Not provided | § 4101 only defines defamation, no federal jurisdiction |
| Denial of IFP application | Sought IFP status jointly | Not provided | IFP denied as moot (no viable claims) and for improper application |
Key Cases Cited
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (establishes the Rule 12(b)(6) standard applies to § 1915(e) dismissals)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (standards for pro se complaint review)
- Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (judges are absolutely immune for acts within judicial capacity)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (malice or error does not abrogate judicial immunity)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (procedural errors do not negate judicial immunity)