Yamburg

Yamburg v. State of California

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 20243:24-cv-04593California989 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

24 A. Standard of Review 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 27 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Legal Claims It is well established that a state judge generally is “immune from suit for money damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991). This immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances. Id. at 11. “First, a judge is not immune from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.