United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On
August 29, 2019, Shane Bliss, a self-represented litigant,
filed a Complaint under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §
1983, along with a civil cover sheet and an Application to
Waive the Filing Fee.[1] The civil cover sheet does not cite to a
U.S. civil statute, but states “Judicial misconduct,
criminal negligence, judges commi[t]ting felonies.”
Additionally, the civil cover sheet gives the brief
description of the cause of action as “Judges heard
testimony from criminal admitting to numerous felonies and
did nothing.” The civil cover sheet also lists two
related state court cases: 3KN-16-00404CI and 3KN-16-00425CI.
The Court takes judicial notice that No. 3KN-16-00404CI is
divorce proceeding with children, Bliss v. Bliss,
which was reopened on September 3, 2019.[2] Hearings in that
case have been held before Judge Anna Moran and Judge Lance
Joanis. The Court also takes judicial notice that No.
3KN-16-00425CI is a civil protective action, Bliss v.
Bliss, which resulted in short-term and long-term
protective orders against Shane Bliss.[3] The long-term
protective order was dissolved on August 8, 2016. Hearings in
that case were held before Judge Jennifer Wells and Judge
Anna Moran.
In his
Complaint, Mr. Bliss alleges Judges Moran, Joanis, and Wells
violated his rights to due process.[4] Mr. Bliss alleges that Judge
Moran “told me I could not report my rape, abuse,
kidnapping, torture and eventual murder to the
police.”[5] He further alleges that Brenna Bliss
admitted those crimes in court and Judge Moran “did
nothing to hold Brenna Bliss accountable for her
crimes.” Mr. Bliss alleges that Judge Joanis “cut
off my testimony in court, declaring he had heard enough. He
did not let me testify against my rapist Brenna Bliss and
gave custody of my children to my
murder[er].”[6] He further alleges that Judge Joanis
awarded “my rapist child support in violation of Alaska
state law” in addition to “half the
children's PFDs[.]” Mr. Bliss alleges that Judge
Wells “allowed coerced testimony from a mentally
handicapped ward of the state in a malicious restraining
order against me.”[7] He further alleges that Judge Wells
“granted the order after it was proven in court I was
no threat.”
Mr.
Bliss also alleges that Dylan Weiss, the court appointed
guardian ad litem from the Office of Public Advocacy,
violated his due process rights. Mr. Bliss alleges that Mr.
Weiss “stated that Anna Moran would never agree to my
having sole custody of my children.”[8] He further
alleges that Mr. Weiss “testified that [Brenna Bliss]
was cooperating with the court. This proves a bias in the
court and perjury on the part of Dylan Weiss.”
Mr.
Bliss lists the State of Alaska as a defendant but does not
include separate or distinct allegations against the State.
Mr. Bliss alleges that “the policy or custom of this
government violates my rights and I seek injunctive relief to
stop the continuing violations of my civil
rights.”[9]
For
relief, Mr. Bliss requests: (1) $500, 000, 00.00 in damages;
(2) $500, 000, 000.00 in punitive damages; (3) an order
requiring defendants “forfeit their licenses to
practice law; and (4) a declaration that the judges
“stand trial with Dylan Weiss as accessory to murder
after the fact.”[10] Mr. Bliss demands a jury trial.
SCREENING
REQUIREMENT
Federal
law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a
civil complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking
to proceed in a lawsuit in federal court without paying the
filing fee.[11] In this screening, a court shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines that the action:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.[12]
To
determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for
relief, courts consider whether the complaint contains
sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true,
“state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”[13] In conducting its review, a court must
liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff's
pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the
doubt.[14] Before a court may dismiss any portion
of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, the court must provide the plaintiff with a
statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems,
unless to do so would be futile.[15]
DISCUSSION
Mr.
Bliss alleges that his due process rights have been violated
by three Alaska Superior Court judges, a court-appointed
guardian ad litem, and the State of Alaska. For a plaintiff
to plausibly allege a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the alleged constitutional or rights violation
must have been caused by a state actor operating under the
color of state law. In this case, all of the defendants named
by Mr. Bliss are either immune from suit or not state actors
for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, Mr. Bliss
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
because none of the named defendants can be sued for their
judicial acts. Furthermore, no defendants can be substituted
under these facts. Therefore, Mr. Bliss's action must be
dismissed with prejudice.
I.
Judges Moran, Joanis, & Wells
In
order to plead a proper § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must
allege plausible facts that if proven would establish each of
the required elements of: “(1) a violation of rights
protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute,
(2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person'
(4) acting under color of state law.”[16] Judges Moran,
Joanis, and Wells are state actors when acting in their role
as a judges for the Superior Court of Alaska. However, not
all state actors are subject to liability under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983
suits for judicial acts.[17]
Since
1872, the Supreme Court has recognized that in order to
ensure the proper administration of justice, a judge
“in exercising the authority vested in him, be free to
act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of
personal consequences to himself.”[18] “Judges
are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within
the jurisdiction of their courts.”[19] A judge will
not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in
error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his
authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when
he has acted in the "clear absence of all
jurisdiction."[20]
When
evaluating whether a judge's act was performed within her
judicial authority, courts focus on whether “(1) the
precise act is a normal judicial function; (2) the events
occurred in the judge's chambers; (3) the controversy
centered around a case then pending before the judge; and (4)
the events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a
confrontation with the judge in his or her official
capacity.”[21] “These factors are to be construed
generously in favor of the judge and in light of the policies
underlying judicial immunity.”[22]
Mr.
Bliss's claims center on each judge ruling against him in
his recent state court actions, Bliss v. Bliss,
3KN-16-00404CI and 3KN-16-00425CI. Mr. Bliss alleges that
each judge violated his right to due process, because they
either considered testimony he did not agree with, limited
his own testimony, or made a decision with which he
disagreed. Mr. Bliss's claims against Judges Moran,
Joanis, and Wells arise directly and solely from their
decisions against him in their roles as state court judges.
Therefore, Judges Moran, Joanis, and Wells are absolutely
immune from suit.
In
these circumstances, amendment of these claims would be
futile. Mr. Bliss's claims against the judicial ...