Phillips v. Parlade, 2:25-cv-01464

Plaintiff T. Matthew Phillips, a California-licensed attorney appearing pro se, sued Nevada state court Judge Mari Parlade alleging fraud, due-process violations, and improper use of artificial intelligence in rulings.
Complaint seeks damages and asks this federal court to void/expunge a state-court Minute Order dated August 15, 2023.
The magistrate judge considered sua sponte dismissal because some claims "cannot possibly win relief."
Court found that judicial immunity broadly protects judges from civil suits based on their judicial acts, including drafting and issuing rulings.
The magistrate concluded Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of claims that effectively ask a district court to overturn a state-court judgment.
Recommendation: dismiss the action with prejudice and without leave to amend. Notice explains 14-day objection period and warns that failure to object may waive appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Parlade is immune from damages claims	Parlade not entitled to judicial immunity because delegating decision-making to AI is not a "judicial act" and therefore outside immunity	Issuing rulings (even if erroneous or using AI) is an inherently judicial act protected by absolute judicial immunity	Judicial immunity bars damages; plaintiff cannot possibly prevail
Whether federal court may void/expunge the state-court Minute Order	The requested relief is necessary to remedy alleged errors and constitutional violations in the state case	Federal court lacks jurisdiction to act as an appellate forum for state-court judgments under Rooker–Feldman	Rooker–Feldman bars federal suit that is a de facto appeal; injunctive relief is prohibited
Whether alleged AI delegation defeats immunity or jurisdiction doctrines	Use of AI purportedly removes the act from judicial character and/or jurisdictional bounds	Alleged use of AI in issuing rulings remains the judge's judicial function and does not convert the act into nonjudicial conduct	Alleged AI delegation does not avoid immunity or jurisdictional bar
Whether dismissal should be with leave to amend	Plaintiff could amend to cure defects	Claims are legally incurable (cannot possibly succeed)	Dismissal recommended with prejudice and without leave to amend

Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (district courts may dismiss sua sponte when plaintiff cannot possibly win relief)
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (federal courts have authority to dismiss frivolous suits)
Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2002) (scope of absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (articulating Rooker–Feldman doctrine and its application)
Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rooker–Feldman prohibits federal district court review that is a de facto appeal)
Kinney v. Cantil-Sakauye, [citation="723 F. App'x 562"] (9th Cir. 2018) (district courts may dismiss claims against judicial officers as barred by judicial immunity or Rooker–Feldman)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge's report may waive appellate review)
Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (an attorney appearing pro se is not entitled to special leniency)