Khazali v. Berns, 2:16-cv-01022

Pro se plaintiff Masoud Khazali sued King County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Berns in federal court, alleging she ignored his motions, "legalized the kidnapping" of his child, and inflicted "torture" on him and his family.
Khazali sought damages and equitable relief related to state custody proceedings (King County Superior Court case No. 15-3-00152-7 SEA), including vacating state orders and federal intervention to return his child.
Magistrate Judge Donohue granted Khazali leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The district court reviewed the state court docket and found Judge Berns issued temporary restraining orders and otherwise performed routine judicial functions in the custody case.
The court concluded Khazali’s allegations were largely conclusory, challenged core judicial functions, and that Judge Berns was acting within her judicial capacity.
The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B), denied leave to amend as futile, and certified any IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims against Judge Berns are actionable despite her status as a judge	Berns ignored motions, "legalized kidnapping," acted unconstitutionally and non-judicially	Berns acted in her judicial capacity and is entitled to judicial immunity	Dismissed: Judge Berns is immune; claims barred by judicial immunity
Whether the complaint states a non-frivolous claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)	Alleged constitutional violations, loss of business/home, and harm from restraining orders	Allegations are conclusory, unreasonable inferences; challenge core judicial acts	Dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
Whether leave to amend should be granted	Implied request for relief and correction of errors	Amendment would be futile because immunity is dispositive	Leave to amend denied as futile

Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (discusses scope of judicial immunity)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity for acts within jurisdiction)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not accepted as true)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1987) (leave to amend where amendment could cure deficiency)
Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial immunity extends to equitable relief)