Nalley v. Laporte

Background

Margaret Nalley sued Elizabeth D. Laporte, a retired magistrate judge; Ninth Circuit Judges J. Clifford Wallace, Barry G. Silverman, and M. Margaret McKeown; attorneys Michael Hoffman, Stephen Noel Ilg, and Frank Zeccola, who represented Nalley in an earlier case; and attorneys Jessica Linehan and Jill Gutierrez, who represented Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America in that case. Nalley alleged that the defendants’ work on the earlier case violated her rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The earlier case concerned allegations that Valeant misled Nalley into revealing that she had bipolar disorder and that Valeant employees then harassed and discriminated against her. Judge Laporte granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Nalley filed the present case in the Eastern District of California, where she was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The case was later transferred to the Northern District of California because venue was improper there.

Screening standard

Because Nalley was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim.

Judicial immunity

The court held that judicial immunity protected Judges Laporte, Wallace, Silverman, and McKeown from Nalley’s claims. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from civil lawsuits based on their judicial acts, even when a party alleges that those acts were erroneous, malicious, corrupt, or beyond the judge’s authority, unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

The court determined that Nalley’s claims challenged orders and rulings the judges made in cases before them. It therefore stated that the claims against those four judges were subject to dismissal with prejudice. If Nalley filed an amended complaint, the court said she could not bring claims against the judges involved in her earlier case.

Jurisdiction and claims against attorneys

The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. It found that the complaint indicated that all parties were citizens of California, so diversity jurisdiction did not exist.

The court also addressed federal-question jurisdiction. Nalley’s claims against the attorneys were based on alleged constitutional violations, but the attorneys were private parties rather than government or state actors. The court stated that a person suing private parties for constitutional violations must allege facts showing that the private parties’ conduct constituted state action. Because Nalley had not explained how or why her constitutional claims could properly be brought against these defendants, the court found that she had not shown federal-question jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court ordered Nalley to file a first amended complaint by September 10, 2021. The amended complaint had to state the grounds and supporting facts for subject matter jurisdiction and identify each defendant and the specific actions that allegedly caused her injuries. It also had to include all facts, claims, and defendants because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint.

The court did not order the entire case dismissed at that time. Instead, it stated that if Nalley did not timely file the amended complaint, the court would recommend dismissal of the action. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.