United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JODY K. MOSLEY, Plaintiff,
J.R. GRACIA, Probate Court Judge, Defendant.
J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jody K. Mosley, proceeding pro se, has filed a one-page
complaint against J.R. Gracia, Probate Court Judge, which
1. Whom it may concern. Under R. Gracia [sic], I have been
falsely arrested. Warrants that shouldn't be. Aretha
2. My doctor was run off. Melvin Cherry. So they wouldn't
give my disability.
3. DHS/Chris Blood/Cathy Duegan has been violating my
right/depriving me (help) as well as benifet [sic].
4. I've been almost set up, of which there [sic] still
5. I have had all rights taken as father. Violated every time
in his court, abusing his powers..
6. Falsely incarserated [sic], as well harrassment [sic].
asking for my rights, as a father. Plus I lived here all my
life, where are my rights? I want my baby's [sic] back.
January 5, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order
granting Mosley leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 4.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the
Court is required to dismiss any action brought under federal
law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see also Benson v. O'Brian,
179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir.
(holding that "§ 1915(e)(2) applies only to in
forma pauperis proceedings"). The Court must read
Podewell's pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596
(1972), and accept his allegations as true, unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).
sues a defendant immune from monetary relief, and he fails to
state a claim. Thus, his complaint must be dismissed as
required by § 1915(e)(2).
well established that a judge is absolutely immune from suit
seeking monetary relief, so long as the judge was performing
judicial functions. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,
9-10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 288 (1991) (per curiam).
“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just
from ultimate assessment of damages.” Id. at
11, 112 S.Ct. at 288. Judicial “immunity applies to
actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover for
alleged deprivation of civil rights.” Stern v.
Mascio, 262 F.3d 600, 606 (6th Cir. 2001). A judge is
not immune (1) where the judge's alleged actions were not
taken in the judge's judicial capacity or (2) where the
actions, although judicial in nature, were taken in the
complete absence of jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S.
at 11-12, 112 S.Ct. at 288. “[T]he scope of the
judge's jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the
issue is the immunity of the judge. 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 ...