Murphy v. Peters et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALFRED G. MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE PETERS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR
SCREENING ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING COMPLAINT
On 	April 	8, 	2022, 	Alfred 	G. 	Murphy, 	a 	self-represented 	prisoner
(hereinafter “Plaintiff”), filed a Prisoner’s Complaint under the Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (hereinafter “Complaint”), a civil cover sheet, and an
application to waive prepayment of the filing fee.1 	The Court now screens
Plaintiff’s Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner. In this screening, a court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action:
1 Dkts. 1-3.
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 2 of 11
(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.2
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.”3 	In
conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented
plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.4
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
2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 	In making this determination, a court may consider
“materials that are submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v.
Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d
668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
4 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773
F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 3 of 11
would be futile.5 Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent
with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]”6
DISCUSSION
I. 	Complaint
Plaintiff 	brings 	suit 	against 	Superior 	Court 	Judge 	Peters, 	Public
Defender Daniel Miznoff, and a Clerk of Court.7 	Plaintiff sues Defendants in
their individual capacities.8
In Claim 1, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Peters “lied to me about not
receiving any of his letters and documents.”9
In Claim 2, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Miznoff did not do his job to
help Plaintiff 	with 	his case and 	did 	not 	let 	Plaintiff 	see his discovery.
Generally, Plaintiff appears dissatisfied with how Defendant Miznoff handled
plea negotiations and stated that Defendant Miznoff “seems to be going
against me with my case.”10
5 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht
v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
6 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th
Cir. 1986).
7 Dkt. 3 at 2.
8 Id.
9 Dkt. 1 at 3.
10 Id. at 4.
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 4 of 11
In Claim 3, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Clerk of Court also did not
do her job, lied about having documents on file, and did not give Plaintiff all
his court papers.11
For relief, Plaintiff indicates that he wants money damages from each
defendant, 	but 	does 	not 	provide 	an 	amount. 	He 	also 	appears 	to 	seek
injunctive 	relief 	by 	requesting 	an 	order 	“requiring 	all 	charges 	be
dismissed.”12 	Plaintiff does not indicate whether or not he demands a trial
by jury.13 	Though Plaintiff sues Defendants in their individual capacities, he
does not specify the amount of damages that he seeks.
The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s pending state criminal
matter.14 	In State of Alaska v. Alfred Murphy, Case No. 4EM-20-00190-CR,
the State of Alaska charged Plaintiff with two counts of Assault in the Second
11 Id. at 5. Plaintiff does not identify a particular person as a party, only the “Clerk
of Court.” In Claim 3, Plaintiff goes on to state the “Bethel Clerk of Court,” but still
does not identify a person.
12 Id. at 2, 8.
13 Id.
14 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power
to accept such a fact.” BLACK ’S LAW D ICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters
Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from
a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 4 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 5 of 11
Degree, two count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, and one count of
Coercion. A calendar call is scheduled for June 22, 2022. 15
II. 	Civil Rights Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have specific required elements that a
plaintiff must plead. 	Title 42, United States Code, Section 	1983 is a federal
statute that “is not itself a source of substantive rights,” but provides “a
method for vindicating rights [found] elsewhere.”16 	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.”17
To act under the color of state law, a complaint must allege that the
defendants acted with state authority as state actors.18 	Furthermore, a
defendant must be eligible for suit. None of the individuals sued by Plaintiff
15 State of Alaska v. Alfred Murphy, Case No. 4EM-20-00190-CR (“Party Charge
Information” & “Events”).
16 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443
U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979))
18 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.
299, 326 (1941)).
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 5 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 6 of 11
in this case are proper defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.
a. Defendant Miznoff
A lawyer appointed to represent a criminal defendant in a state court
proceeding is "as a matter of law, ... not a state actor."19 	Such a lawyer,
whether from the Office of Public Advocacy, Public Defender’s Agency, or by
contract is “no doubt, paid by government funds and hired by a government
agency.”20 	This method of payment and retention, however, does not matter,
as the lawyer’s role in this scenario is “to represent [their] client, not the
interests of the [government entity paying their fees].”21 In this way, a court-
appointed lawyer is no different than a privately retained attorney, who in
no way can be considered a state actor, but whose “duties and obligations [to
the client] are the same.”22
Defendant 	Miznoff 	is an 	attorney 	with 	the State of 	Alaska Public
Defender Agency assigned to represent Plaintiff in his pending criminal case.
19 See Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, 540 U.S. 814 (2003).
20 Id., citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (recognizing that the
public 	defender 	performs 	“a 	lawyer’s 	traditional 	functions” 	in 	the 	lawyer’s
traditional adversarial role).
21 Id.
22 Polk County, 454 U.S. at 318-19.
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 6 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 7 of 11
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief from Defendant
Miznoff. 	As court appointed counsel to an indigent defendant, Defendant
Minzoff is not a state actor as a matter of law. Therefore, he cannot be sued
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
b. Defendant Judge Peters
A state court judicial officer is a state actor. 	However, “[j]udges and
those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage
liability for acts performed in their official capacities.”23 	Moreover, judicial
immunity extends to preclude prospective injunctive relief against a state
court judge for acts or omissions made in that judge’s official capacity.24 This
judicial 	immunity 	is 	immunity 	from 	lawsuit, 	not 	just 	from 	ultimate
assessment of damages, and it cannot be overcome by allegations of bad faith
or malice.25
23 Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted) (in
determining if an action is judicial, 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.”). 	“These factors are to be construed generously in
favor of the judge and in light of the policies underlying judicial immunity.”
24 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
25 Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526
(1985); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967)).
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 7 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 8 of 11
Defendant Peters is a judicial officer in the Alaska Superior Court.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages, as well as injunctive relief due to
Defendant Peters’s alleged lie to Plaintiff. While Defendant Peters, in theory,
could grant or respond to the requested injunctive relief, Defendant Peters is
bound by Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, Alaska Statutes, the Alaska
Constitution, and his duty as a judicial officer to preside over criminal cases
in Alaska Superior Court. 	Any remarks Defendant Peters may have made
while presiding over Plaintiff’s hearing, to include purported misstatements
about the receipt of Plaintiff’s documents, are acts performed in his official
capacity. As a judicial officer acting in his official capacity, Defendant Peters
is immune from suit as a matter of law. Therefore, he cannot be sued under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
c. 	Defendant Clerk of Court
A court clerk is a state actor. However like judges, "[c]ourt clerks have
absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations
when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process."26
A mistake does not abrogate this immunity even if it results in 	"grave
26 Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th
Cir. 1987).
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 8 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 9 of 11
procedural errors."27 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that
"when a person who is alleged to have caused a deprivation of constitutional
rights while acting under color of federal law can successfully assert judicial
or 	quasi-judicial 	immunity 	from 	damages, 	that 	immunity 	also 	will 	bar
declaratory and injunctive relief.”28
Defendant Clerk of Court is a court clerk in the Alaska Court System.
Plaintiff seeks relief due to Defendant Clerk of Court’s alleged actions in his
pending criminal case regarding the handling of documents. As a court clerk
performing administrative tasks that are part of Plaintiff’s ongoing state
court criminal matter, Defendant Clerk of Court is immune from suit as a
matter of law. Therefore, she cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
CONCLUSION
Defendants 	are 	not 	proper 	defendants 	or 	are 	immune 	from 	suit.
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In addition, no defendants may be substituted under these facts; therefore,
amendment is futile.29
27 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978).
28 Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1394.
29 Hartmann v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”).
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 9 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 10 of 11
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:
1. 	This action should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failing to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and the futility of amendment.
2. All pending motions should be DENIED AS MOOT.
3. A dismissal under these circumstances should be a strike as required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, et al., 590 U.S. ___, 140
S.Ct. 172 (2020).30
4. The Clerk of Court should issue a final judgment.
DATED this 22nd day of June, 2022 at Anchorage, Alaska.
s/ Kyle F. Reardon
KYLE F. REARDON
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Alaska
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may designate a magistrate
judge 	to 	hear 	and 	determine 	matters 	pending 	before 	the 	Court. 	For
30 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner who files more than three actions or
appeals in any federal court in the United States which are dismissed as frivolous
or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, from
bringing any other actions without prepayment of fees unless the prisoner can
demonstrate that he or she is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 10 of 11

Screening Order
Murphy v. Peters et al
4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR 	Page 11 of 11
dispositive matters, a magistrate judge reports findings of fact and provides
recommendations to the presiding district court judge.31 A district court judge
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s
order.32
A party may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s order
within 14 fourteen days.33 Objections and responses are limited to five (5)
pages 	in 	length 	and 	should 	not 	merely 	reargue 	positions 	previously
presented. 	Rather, objections and responses should specifically identify the
findings or recommendations objected to, the basis of the objection, and any
legal authority in support. Reports and recommendations are not appealable
orders. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be
filed until entry of the district court’s judgment.34
31 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
32 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
33 Id.
34 See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 5 Filed 06/22/22 Page 11 of 11