Wagner et al v. Ruppert et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
RICHARD-LEROY WAGNER,
TRISH-JOANNE WAGNER
MIKOLAJCZYK, KRISTIN-JANELLE
WAGNER, and RAYMOND-PAUL
MIKOLAJCZYK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SPENCER J. RUPPERT, KIRK F.
SCHWALM, RUTH MEIER, CSOLIZ,
TESSA TATE, DEBORAH A. LEE,
and GREGORY W. WAGNER,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG
ORDER REMANDING STATE PROBATE CASE AND DISMISSING ALL
OTHER CLAIMS
Self-represented Plaintiffs Richard-LeRoy Wagner, Trish-JoAnne Wagner
Mikolajczyk, Kristin-Janelle Wagner, and Raymond-Paul Mikolajczyk (“Plaintiffs”)
initiated this action on June 23, 2023, by filing a “Complaint for Violation of Civil
Rights, §§ 1986, 1985, and 1983”.1 Attached to that document, they also filed a
“Civil Action Notice of Removal of State Action[,] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1331, Federal
1 Docket 1.
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 2 of 10
Question.”2 Plaintiffs allege that they are citizens of the State of Alaska and the
children of Richard Errol Wagner.3
The Court takes judicial notice4 of the state court probate action regarding
the Estate of Richard Errol Wagner that Plaintiffs seek to remove to federal court.
After Plaintiffs filed the Notice of Removal in the state court and in this Court, the
Superior Court stayed the state probate case.5
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs name as Defendants two other children of the
decedent, Deborah Lee and Gregory Wagner. They also name as Defendants
Superior Court Judge Kirk Schwalm, Magistrate Judge Spencer Ruppert (acting
as Standing Master in the state probate case), and three Superior Court Clerks
(collectively, the “State Court Defendants”). Plaintiffs maintain that they are
“attempting to execute the wishes of the decedent as agreed and understood by
all family members prior to his death.”6 Plaintiffs allege Defendants conspired “to
2 Docket 1-1.
3 Docket 1 at 2.
4 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 Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201; 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).
5 In The Matter of The Estate of Richard Errol Wagner, Case No. 4FA-23-00055PR. Docket
7/01/2023 (Case Stayed by filing of Federal Case); Docket 6/23/2023 (Notice of Removal).
6 Docket 1 at 2.
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 3 of 10
pervert the wishes of the decedent” and denied Plaintiffs “the legal right to have all
documents and process served to them” in the probate case.7
There are currently five motions pending before this Court. At Docket 9,
Defendants Deborah Lee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6); Gregory Wagner joined in that motion at Docket 12. At Docket
14, the State Court Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
At Docket 18, Plaintiff Raymond-Paul Mikolayczyk filed a motion for correction of
errors. At Docket 23, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Contract Owners Orders;
In Nature of Motion to Strike; Assignments of Errors; Hearing Demand; Submission
of Records.” And at Docket 30, Defendant Deborah Lee filed a motion to remand,
which was joined by Defendant Gregory Wagner at Docket 31 and non-opposed
by the State Court Defendants at Docket 32.
As explained below, Plaintiffs cannot proceed with the probate case in
federal court, so it must be remanded to the State Superior Court. Further,
Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights Complaint must also be dismissed. Plaintiffs name the State
Court Defendants, but they are all immune from suit, and Plaintiffs cannot bring a
civil rights complaint in federal court against their siblings, because they are not
state actors as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the probate matter must
be remanded to state court and all of the remaining claims must be dismissed.
7 Docket 1 at 4.
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 4 of 10
I. CLAIMS AGAINST STATE COURT DEFENDANTS
In their motion at Docket 14, State Court Defendants assert that judicial
immunity bars all of Plaintiffs’ claims against them. It may be that Plaintiffs’ filing
at Docket 23 was intended to constitute their opposition to this motion, but it does
not respond directly to the applicable legal principle raised by the State Court
Defendants in their motion.
The law is clearly established that judicial officers are entitled to absolute
judicial immunity from federal civil rights suits for judicial acts taken within the
jurisdiction of their courts, and “judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of
bad faith or malice.”8 Judicial immunity is an absolute immunity from suit overcome
only (1) where a judge takes actions outside of judicial capacity, or (2) where
judicial actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.9 Similarly,
"[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."10 A mistake does not abrogate this absolute immunity even if it results
in "grave procedural errors."11
8 Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).
9 Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991).
10 Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987).
11 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978).
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 5 of 10
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ allegations against the State Court Defendants Judge
Kirk Schwalm, Magistrate Judge Spencer Ruppert, and Superior Court Clerks Ruth
Meier, CSoliz, and Tessa Tate all directly relate to judicial actions taken by them
in their official capacities in the state probate cases. These Defendants are all
absolutely immune from suit, so the State Court Defendants’ motion to dismiss at
Docket 14 is GRANTED and all claims against them are DISMISSED with
prejudice.12
II. REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST DEBORAH LEE AND GREGORY
WAGNER
A. The Probate Exception Bars Removal of the Probate Case
At Docket 30, Defendant Deborah Lee seeks to remand the probate action
to the state court. Plaintiffs did not file any response to this motion. Oral argument
was requested on this motion but was unnecessary to the Court’s determination.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a civil action brought
in a state court to a district court if the plaintiffs could have originally filed the action
in federal court. Removal is thus only proper if the federal district court possesses
original jurisdiction over the issues alleged in the state court complaint.13 When an
12 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.”).
13 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 6 of 10
action is removed from state court, the removing party bears the burden of
demonstrating that removal is proper.14 Because district courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction, courts construe the removal statute strictly and reject federal
jurisdiction if there is any doubt as to the right of removal.15
“The probate exception to federal jurisdiction reserves probate matters to
state probate courts and precludes federal courts from disposing of property in the
custody of a state court.”16 The probate exception prevents a federal court from (1)
probating or annulling a will, (2) administering a decedent's estate, or (3) assuming
in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate
court.”17 Cleary, the probate exception applies here and the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the probate proceedings. Accordingly, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c), the state case, In the Matter of the Estate of Richard Errol
Wagner, Case No. 4FA-23-00055 PR, is REMANDED to the Superior Court for
the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District at Fairbanks.
B. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction over the Remaining Claims
The remaining claims are Plaintiffs’ claims alleging civil rights violations by
Defendants Deborah Lee and Gregory Wagner. Plaintiffs assert Defendants
14 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
15 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
16 Goncalves ex rel. Goncalves v. Rady Children's Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1251 (9th
Cir. 2017).
17 Id. at 1252.
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 6 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 7 of 10
violated their civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their
rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985), and neglected to prevent interference with their civil
rights (42 U.S.C. §1986).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) “provides a cause of action for the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States.”18 Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive
rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred
elsewhere.19 To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
essential 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.20 Private citizens are not proper defendants for
a Section 1983 action.21
As explained above, judges and judicial employees are immune from suit
and all claims against the State Court Defendants must therefore be dismissed.
The remaining Defendants, Deborah Lee and Gregory Wagner, are private
18 Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
19 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
20 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245
(9th Cir. 1987).
21 See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007); Hale v.
Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc); see generally Lugar v. Edmondson Oil
Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (analyzing whether a corporation’s actions that resulted in the
loss of the petitioner’s property were under color of state law.).
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 7 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 8 of 10
citizens, not state actors, and therefore are not proper defendants for federal civil
rights claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state a cognizable claim under
Section 1983.
Because Plaintiffs cannot maintain a Section 1983 action against any of the
named Defendants, they likewise cannot maintain a Section 1985 conspiracy
claim. This is because “the absence of a Section 1983 deprivation of rights
precludes a Section 1985 conspiracy claim predicated on the same allegations.”22
Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (“Section 1986”) imposes liability on any person who
knows of an impending violation of Section 1985 but neglects or refuses to prevent
the violation.”23 Section 1986 claims are therefore derivative of Section 1985
violations because “[t]he text of § 1986 requires the existence of a § 1985
conspiracy,” and, as such, these claims must too be dismissed.24
Nor can Plaintiffs maintain an action in federal court alleging state law claims
such as conversion or other tort claims against Defendants Lee and Wagner on
the basis of diversity of citizenship. To maintain such claims in federal court, a
pleading must allege that each defendant's domicile is in a state different from
each plaintiff's domicile and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.25
22 Caldeira v. Cnty. of Kauai, 866 F.2d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 1989).
23 Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988).
24 Scofield v. Guillard, No. 3:22-CV-00521-REP, 2023 WL 5045274, at *8 (D. Idaho Aug. 8,
2023).
25 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Demarest v. HSCB Bank USA, 920 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir.
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 8 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 9 of 10
Here, all Plaintiffs and Defendants Lee and Wagner are all citizens of Alaska.26
Therefore, Plaintiffs have not established “complete diversity of citizenship,27 and
the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction in this case.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have improperly removed the state probate case and failed to
establish that this Court has jurisdiction over any of the remaining claims.
Therefore, the motion to remand the state probate case is GRANTED and the
motions to dismiss all remaining claims against the State Court Defendants and
Defendants Lee and Wagner are each GRANTED for the reasons set forth herein.
Further, because this Court finds that it clearly would not be possible for Plaintiffs
to amend the complaint to state a viable cause of action in federal court against
any of the named defendants, the dismissal of all claims in this action shall be
without leave to amend.28
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Motion to Remand at Docket 30 is GRANTED; In the Matter of the
Estate of Richard Errol Wagner, Case No. 4FA-23-00055 PR, is REMANDED to
the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District at Fairbanks. A
2019).
26 Docket 1 at 2.
27 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
28 See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.178 (1962)
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 9 of 10

Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-SLG, Wagner, et al. v. Ruppert, et al.
Order Remanding State Case and Dismissing All Other Claims
Page 10 of 10
certified copy of this order shall be mailed by the clerk of this court to the clerk of
the State court.
2. The State Court Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all claims against them
at Docket 14 is GRANTED; all claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
3. Defendant Deborah Lee’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket 9, as joined by
Defendant Gregory Wagner at Docket 12, is GRANTED and all remaining claims
against them are DISMISSED.
4. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.
5. The Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and
without leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 21st day of December, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:23-cv-00013-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 10 of 10