Coleman v. Leavitt

Coleman · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · December 5, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-01997-RFB-MDC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants Oronde Coleman’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismisses his § 1983 complaint without prejudice because the defendant, a state court judge, is protected by judicial immunity, and the claims may also be barred by the Heck doctrine. The court allows Coleman an opportunity to file an amended complaint and strikes the existing complaint from the record.

Holdings

  1. The court granted Coleman's application to proceed in forma pauperis and waived the initial filing fee because the calculated initial fee was less than $10, while preserving his obligation to pay the full filing fee in installments.
  2. The claims were barred by absolute judicial immunity because the challenged conduct occurred while Judge Leavitt was acting in her judicial capacity, and Coleman did not allege that she acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
  3. The claims were also likely barred by the Heck doctrine because success on Coleman's allegations concerning the criminal proceedings would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which had not been invalidated through an authorized avenue.
  4. The court dismissed the state-law claims unless a federal claim was allowed to proceed because the federal claims had been dismissed and the court could decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Coleman qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
  2. Whether the § 1983 claims against the state-court judge were barred by absolute judicial immunity.
  3. Whether the claims were also barred by the Heck doctrine because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of Coleman's criminal conviction.
  4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the asserted Nevada constitutional claims after dismissal of the federal claims.
  5. Whether the complaint should be struck because it identified an alleged sexual-assault victim by full name.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (19)

  • Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)(followed)
  • Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Buckley v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
  • Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)(followed)
  • Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…