AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, Manuel Trujillo, alleged that his civil rights were violated when a metropolitan court judge, Defendant Judge Valdez, wrongfully caused him to be arrested and prosecuted, sentenced to community service, and fined. The Plaintiff sought one hundred fifty million dollars in damages and the expungement of his arrest record. The Plaintiff's complaint also mentioned that he was arrested on non-existent warrants, required to appear before the court multiple times, ordered to undergo a urine analysis, and was put into the probation system, which he claimed violated a plea involving charges brought against him in 1995. The Plaintiff admitted to pleading guilty to the underlying charges, resulting in a $25 fine (para Background Facts).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that his civil rights were violated by the actions of Defendant Judge Valdez, leading to wrongful arrest, prosecution, sentencing to community service, and a fine. The Plaintiff sought damages and the expungement of his arrest record (para Background Facts).
• Defendant: Moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the actions taken were within his capacity as a judge, for which he has absolute judicial immunity. The Defendant also noted that the Plaintiff did not respond to the motion as required (para Background Facts).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant Judge Valdez's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim was properly granted based on absolute judicial immunity.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to have his criminal record expunged.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint was affirmed.
• The Plaintiff's motion to amend his response to the Court's third calendar notice was denied.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, Michael D. Bustamante, and Timothy L. Garcia, unanimously affirmed the district court's order of dismissal based on the Defendant's absolute judicial immunity for actions taken within his judicial capacity. The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to amend, stating that issues raised were not viable and that adding new defendants at the appellate level would deny due process. The Court also held that the Plaintiff's complaint did not allege facts constituting extraordinary circumstances for expungement of his record. The reasoning was grounded in the principle that judges have absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts undertaken within the scope of their judicial duties, focusing on the role played by the Defendant and whether it was integral to the judicial process. The Court also referenced the established legal principle that district courts possess the inherent authority to expunge criminal records only in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case (Discussion, The Motion to Dismiss was Properly Granted, Finally).