Arthur Lopez v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court screened a pro se plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) complaint alleging that the United States Supreme Court negligently failed to docket two petitions for writs of certiorari. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, holding that the Supreme Court's docketing practices are protected by absolute judicial immunity, which the FTCA does not abrogate.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint without leave to amend“Because amendment cannot cure the legal bar of immunity, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint [Dkt. 1] without leave to amend.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity to the specific conduct alleged. The Ninth Circuit has explicitly held that the Clerk of the Supreme Court is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity against FTCA claims for acts related to the management of the docket, such as receiving and processing submissions. Because the plaintiff's claim is based entirely on the failure to docket petitions, the claim is barred by immunity. Since immunity is a legal bar that cannot be cured by factual amendment, the denial of leave to amend is appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable screening standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for pro se litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. It accurately applies Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that docketing decisions by the Supreme Court and its Clerk are protected by absolute judicial immunity, which is not abrogated by the FTCA. The conclusion that amendment is futile because the bar is legal (immunity) rather than factual is consistent with established law.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR LOPEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-02978-JO-BJW 12 Plaintiff, 13 MINUTE ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [DKT. 14 v. 1] 15 16 UNITED STATES, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 Pro se Plaintiff Arthur Lopez brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act 21 (“FTCA”) alleging that the United States Supreme Court negligently failed to docket two 22 petitions for writs of certiorari. Dkt. 1. Because the Court grants Plaintiff leave to proceed 23 in forma pauperis, it screens his complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) (a court may sua 24 sponte dismiss a case if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief 25 may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief”). 26 Upon screening, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim fails because the Supreme 27 Court’s docketing practices are protected from suit. Judges are absolutely immune from 28 suit for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 1 ||964, 970 (9th Cir. 2021). The Ninth Circuit has extended this absolute immunity to 2 || administrative acts performed by court clerks and other non-judicial officers—“acts which 3 ||taken out of context would appear ministerial, but when viewed in context are actually a 4 || part of the judicial function’—including decisions related to a court’s power to control its 5 docket. Jn re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir.2002), as amended (Sept. 6, 2002). 6 || The FTCA does not abrogate this judicial immunity. See Sharma v. Stevas, 790 F.2d 1486, 7 || 1486 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that the Clerk of the Supreme Court was entitled to absolute 8 || quasi-judicial immunity against FTCA claims). Here, Plaintiff bases his FTCA claim on 9 || allegations that the Supreme Court negligently failed to docket two petitions for writs of 10 certiorari, thereby costing him $483,000,000 in lost damages. See Dkt. 1. The decision of 11 || whether and how submissions are received, processed, and entered on the Court’s docket 12 integral to the judicial function and directly implicates the Court’s inherent authority to 13 ||manage its cases. Accordingly, the challenged conduct is immune from FTCA liability. 14 || See In re Castillo, 297 F.3d at 952. 15 Because amendment cannot cure the legal bar of immunity, the Court DISMISSES 16 Plaintiff's complaint [Dkt. 1] without leave to amend. See Gonzalez v. Planned 17 || Parenthood, 759, F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (‘Futility of amendment can, by itself, 18 justify the denial of .. . leave to amend.’”) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 19 || (9th Cir. 1995)). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. 20 1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: June 30, 2026 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28