148 F. Supp. 3d 24
D.D.C.2015Background
- Miguel Ilaw (pro se) sued Judge Lucy H. Koh and Littler Mendelson, P.C., challenging Judge Koh’s dismissal of his earlier Title VII case (Ilaw I) and alleging constitutional and civil-rights violations, fraud on the court, and the tort of outrage.
- Ilaw previously litigated related claims in multiple forums: Ilaw I (N.D. Cal. dismissed; affirmed by Ninth Circuit; cert. denied), Ilaw II (N.D. Cal. dismissed with prejudice; affirmed), and Ilaw III (Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; later vacated/remanded by Federal Circuit as to remedy form).
- The instant suit largely repeats allegations from Ilaw II and Ilaw III, asserting a “Second Notice of Right to Sue” should have tolled limitations and alleging collusion between Judge Koh and defense counsel (Littler).
- Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including judicial immunity (for Judge Koh), res judicata, and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); Ilaw sought an immunity analysis and declaratory relief.
- The Court granted both defendants’ motions, denied Ilaw’s requested relief, and dismissed the action with prejudice, holding (1) judicial immunity bars claims against Judge Koh, (2) res judicata precludes relitigation of the same nucleus of facts, and (3) the complaint fails to state viable claims under Iqbal/Twombly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity (Judge Koh) | Koh acted maliciously, exceeded authority, and engaged in non-judicial acts so immunity doesn't apply | Judge Koh acted in her judicial capacity; absolute immunity protects judicial acts even if erroneous or malicious | Dismissed: Judicial immunity bars claims against Judge Koh |
| Res judicata / claim preclusion | Prior dismissals didn’t address the “Second Notice” and therefore do not preclude this suit | Prior litigation (Ilaw II et al.) involved the same nucleus of facts and resulted in final judgments precluding relitigation | Dismissed: Res judicata bars claims against both defendants |
| Failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Complaint alleges violations under § 1983, § 1985, fraud on the court, and outrage; requests injunctive relief and damages | Complaint contains conclusory allegations, lacks facts showing state action, conspiracy, or elements of asserted torts/statutory claims | Dismissed: Complaint fails to plead plausible claims under Iqbal/Twombly |
| Motion for immunity analysis / criminal allegations | Requests court to analyze immunity and deny entitlement to defendants; alleges criminal conduct by defendants | Immunity doctrines and prior appellate rulings foreclose relief; criminal charges cannot be prosecuted by private plaintiff in civil suit | Denied: Motion for immunity analysis/relief denied; criminal prosecution requests not cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard and rejection of naked assertions)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (absolute judicial immunity protects judges from money-damages suits for judicial acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity applies even if action was in error or in excess of authority)
- Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (judges enjoy absolute immunity except when acting in complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (pro se complaints are construed liberally but must satisfy plausibility)
- Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (same nucleus of facts test for claim preclusion)
- NRDC v. EPA, 513 F.3d 257 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (elements of claim preclusion)