Davis v. MacLaughlin
Filed 7/26/07 Davis v. MacLaughlin CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
MARCELLUS DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. MACLAUGHLIN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B194094 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC353672) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Affirmed.
Marcellus Davis, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, James M. Schiavenza, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richard J. Rojo, Marsha S. Miller, and David Adida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.
__________________________________
Marcellus Davis, Jr. sued L & R Automotive Supply Co. in small claims court and lost at a hearing presided over by a temporary judge. Davis complained to the supervising judge that the temporary judge was biased against him because of his race and mental disability. The complaint was referred to the Los Angeles County Superior Courts Temporary Judges Committee, which reviewed the record of the small claims proceedings, found no evidence of bias or unfairness, and (by letter from Comr. Douglas G. Carnahan) so advised Davis. Dissatisfied, Davis complained to the presiding judge (Hon. William A. MacLaughlin), who referred the matter to the assistant presiding judge (Hon. Stephen J. Czuleger), who reviewed the entire file, then wrote to Davis to tell him his claims were without merit and the case had been closed.
Davis then filed a pro se complaint against the judge pro tem, the commissioner, and the supervising, presiding and assistant presiding judges, alleging a conspiracy to deny his constitutional right to due process that caused him to suffer emotional distress. The judicial officers demurred on the ground of judicial immunity and the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Davis appeals.
DISCUSSION
Assuming the truth of Daviss allegations as we must on review of a demurrer dismissal (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318), all of the judicial officers are absolutely immune from liability for acts performed within their jurisdiction and in their official capacities (Stump v. Sparkman (1978) 435 U.S. 349, 356-357; Greene v. Zank (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 497, 507). Because the record confirms that all of the judicial officers were at all relevant times acting in their judicial capacity and within their jurisdiction, they are absolutely immune from liability in this case. (Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 11-12; Regan v. Price (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1495; Greene v. Zank, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 507; Paddleford v. Biscay (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 139, 143-144.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are entitled to their costs of appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
VOGEL, Acting P.J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
JACKSON, J.*
______________________________________________________________________________
*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
