Free Order Dismissing Case (1915) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00304-JJF Document 8 Filed 12/O1/2005 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IVAN L. MENDEZ, :
Plaintiff, E
v. S Civ. Act. No. 05-304-JJF
DELAWARE LEGAL SYSTEM, E
Defendant. E
M MORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, Ivan L. Mendez, a pro gg litigant, has filed the
above—captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Though
largely unintelligible, Plaintiff appears to allege that he was
injured by several legal decisions resulting in the appointment
of an attorney and his commitment to the Delaware Psychiatric
Center.
Having granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court must next screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 19l5A(b)(1) to determine whether it is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from relief. In conducting this review, the Court must “accept
as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Nami v.
Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). The term “frivolous” as
used in Section 1915, “embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989}.

Case1:O5-cv-00304-JJF D0cument8 FiIed12/O1/2005 Page20f2
The Court has reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s
Complaint and concludes that Plaintiff cannot state a claim. As
a factual matter, Plaintiff’s allegations are nonsensical. As a
legal matter, actions taken by Delaware judges through the
Delaware court system are protected from suit by absolute
judicial immunity. Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2ll
F.3d 760, 768—69 (3d Cir- 2000).
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this jL_ day of December
2005, that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)—l915A(b)(l).
ll P, i

swj
2