Kimner v. Davila

Background

Audrey L. Kimner, representing herself, filed a complaint against multiple federal judges. The opinion states that the judges had presided over several earlier cases Kimner filed in the Northern District of California. Those earlier cases concerned, among other things, state-court proceedings involving assets and family-court proceedings involving child custody and child support. Kimner also appeared to challenge the use of WebWatcher software to monitor online communications for use in family-court proceedings.

Kimner alleged that four judges harmed her and her family by failing to hold hearings and dismissing her earlier claims. She suggested that the judges had colluded, conspired, and discriminated against her, and sought approximately $200 million. The court stated that she provided no meaningful support for those allegations.

Request to Proceed Without Paying Filing Fees

Kimner moved for permission to begin the civil action without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may grant that permission only if the person cannot pay the fees and the complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted. The court found that Kimner was unable to pay the full fees, costs, or required security.

The court nevertheless had to review the complaint before directing service. It applied the same basic standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint had to provide enough factual matter to make a legally recognized claim plausible. Because Kimner was representing herself, the court read her allegations liberally and gave her the benefit of reasonable doubt, but it did not have to accept unsupported conclusions or unreasonable inferences.

Judicial Immunity

The court held that Kimner’s claims were barred by judicial immunity. Judicial immunity is a legal protection that generally prevents civil lawsuits against judges for actions taken in their judicial capacities. The protection applies even when a judge allegedly acted incorrectly, maliciously, or beyond the judge’s authority. A plaintiff may overcome it only by showing that the judge acted outside a judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

The court found that Kimner had not plausibly alleged either exception. Instead, her complaint acknowledged that the judges were acting in their judicial capacities when they presided over and dismissed her earlier cases. The court therefore concluded that the complaint lacked a legally supportable theory or sufficient facts to support one.

Disposition

The court DENIED Kimner’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees. It also found that allowing an amended complaint would be futile and DISMISSED the complaint without leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. The court cautioned Kimner not to evade its orders or those of another court by filing a new case, and stated that she should appeal to the Ninth Circuit if she disagreed with the order.