United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Re:
ECF No. 1
Laurel
Beeler United States Magistrate Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The
plaintiff, Mario Torres, who is representing himself, filed a
civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming
that Simone Voltz, a Supervising Deputy Clerk at the
California Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court Office
of the Clerk, and “Staff of ‘The
Court'” John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10,
individually and in their official capacities, denied his
right of “Access to Courts” under the First
Amendment and his Due Process rights under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments when they failed to file his legal
documents and thereby hindered his efforts to pursue his
legal claims.[1] The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the
defendants violated his constitutional rights, compensatory
and punitive damages “in the amount deemed just by a
jury, ” nominal damages “in the amount deemed
just by this court, ” attorney's fees and costs,
and “any other just and equitable relief that this
Court deems just.”[2]
The
court previously granted Mr. Torres's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.[3] The plaintiff consented to
magistrate jurisdiction.[4] Before directing the United States
Marshal to serve the defendants with Mr. Torres's
complaint, the court must screen it for minimal legal
viability. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court
dismisses the complaint with leave to amend on the grounds
that claims against all defendants are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment and Ms. Voltz and court staff John Does 1-10 and
Jane Does 1-10 have quasi-judicial immunity.
STATEMENT
On
January 3, 2019, Mr. Torres “filed a State Bar
complaint against many lawyers for unlawful acts occurring
from 4-3-19 to 1-3-19.”[5] The State Bar denied the
plaintiff's request for an investigation on January 30,
2019 because the facts presented stemmed from complaints
filed by the plaintiff in 2015 and 2016.[6]
Around
March 24, 2019, while the plaintiff was incarcerated in the
Contra Costa County Jail, the plaintiff filed a
“Verified Accusation” with the California Supreme
Court under the prison mailbox rule.[7] In the accusation, the
plaintiff “informed the court of his indigent status
and the fact that plaintiff did not have a law library
available, nor any of the required legal
resources.”[8] On April 2, 2019, Jorge E. Navarrete, the
Clerk and Executive Officer of the California Supreme Court,
returned the plaintiff's accusation, explaining that it
could not be processed “because the court must have a
copy of the final letter from the
State Bar directing [the plaintiff] to seek review by the
Supreme Court.”[9] The plaintiff had two cases on file with
the State Bar.[10] “[C]ase number 15-28764 was closed
in 2016. Case number 19-12029 is still pending with the State
Bar and no final letter has issued yet.”[11]
On May
14, 2019, the plaintiff tried to file an accusation in person
at the California Supreme Court to dispute the State
Bar's “previous ruling.”[12] “A
clerk of court again refused to file” it, gave the
plaintiff a coversheet and a declaration form, and instructed
the plaintiff to file an “Application for Relief from
Default” and inform the court of his indigent
status.[13] Around June 12, 2019, the plaintiff
mailed his accusation to the California Supreme Court, which
included the coversheet, declaration, “Application for
Relief from Default, ” and “Notification of
Indigency, ” and incorporated all of the corrections
that the clerk of the court told him to make.[14]
Around
June 17, 2019, Simone Voltz called the
plaintiff.[15] The plaintiff believed that Ms. Voltz
“was doing some sort of personal investigation on
whether Plaintiff[']s ‘Verified Accusation' had
merit.”[16] She questioned him
“profusely” and seemed “agitated”
about his accusation.[17] Ms. Voltz assured the plaintiff
“many times during the conversation” that his
accusation would be filed.[18]
On June
20, 2019, Mr. Navarrete again returned the plaintiff's
accusation.[19] His cover letter said the following:
The court has instructed me to return your documents to you
unfiled. In the State Bar's April 8, 2016, final letter
to you in 15-28764, you were informed that if you choose to
file an accusation that you must do so within 60 days of that
letter[;] over 1000 days have elapsed. As for case 19-12029.
. . that case is still open and [] no final letter has
issued. Upon your receipt of the State Bar's final letter
in 19-12029, if you decide to file an accusation[, ] please
ensure to comply with the court's requirements by
providing an original and ten copies in proper form, together
with proof of service of three copies on the General Counsel,
State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, and one copy on the State Bar Court, 845 South
Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Although there is no
form approved by the Judicial Council, your accusation (1)
must be verified (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6108) and (2)
must conform as closely as possible to rule 8.204 of the
California Rules of Court regarding briefs.[20]
Around
June 28, 2018, the plaintiff went to the California Supreme
Court and asked Celia Rivera, a clerk at the California
Supreme Court, for a form “for the filing of a
complaint against the clerks of the
court.”[21] He told her that the clerks of the court
were refusing to file his documents.[22] Ms. Rivera told the
plaintiff that “there was no process in place to file a
complaint against the clerks of the California Supreme Court,
leaving this civil action as [the plaintiff's] only
remedy.”[23] She checked the court's computer,
found the plaintiff's documents, printed them, took them
to a back cubicle, and returned a few minutes
later.[24] She explained to the plaintiff why his
“Verified Accusation” had no merit.[25] The plaintiff
told Ms. Rivera that “only a judge has the right to
decide whether or no[t], Plaintiff[']s motions have
merit.”[26] He also told Ms. Rivera that the State
Bar “was in error for refusing to competently
acknowledge [his] complaint by using case [numbers] from 2015
&[] 2016 even though plaintiff[']s latest complaint
referenced unlawful lawyer acts that occurred well into
2018.”[27] The plaintiff and Ms. Rivera discussed
Voit v. Superior Court of Santa Clara
County.[28] Ms. Rivera told the plaintiff that
because Voit is a Superior Court case, it
“doesn't apply to the California Supreme
Court.”[29] The plaintiff said that the
“principles are the same” and that he had a
“right to the ‘Access to Courts,'
[g]uaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution” and Article 1, Section 3 of the
California Constitution.[30] He told Ms. Rivera that he intended
to file a lawsuit for denial of his “‘Access of
Courts.'”[31]
Ms.
Rivera asked whether the plaintiff would like to speak to a
supervisor.[32] The plaintiff said yes, and Ms. Rivera
returned with her supervisor, Ms. Voltz.[33] The plaintiff
asked why his accusation was not being filed, and Ms. Voltz
replied that “‘The Court' had instructed her
not to [file it].”[34] The plaintiff said that only a judge
had the authority to decide whether his filings had merit,
and Ms. Voltz said that “she was aware of the
fact.”[35] When pressed about whether a judge or a
clerk instructed her not to file his accusation, Ms. Voltz
repeated that “‘The Court'” instructed
her not to file it.[36] The plaintiff asked Ms. Voltz
“‘who is The Court, '” and she replied,
“‘The Court. . . is The
Court.'”[37] The plaintiff said that he had a right
of access to the court under the First
Amendment.[38] Ms. Voltz said that the plaintiff
“did not have a right to the ‘Access to
Court,' if ‘The Court' decided that he did
not.”[39] This exchange about who asked Ms. Voltz
not to file the plaintiff's documents “recycle[d]
about four times.”[40] Throughout this conversation, the
plaintiff felt that Ms. Voltz “continued to act
maliciously and with deliberate indifference[, ] continuing
to ‘play with words' stating ‘The Courts'
had instructed her not to file Plaintiff[']s legal
documents.”[41] The plaintiff then left,
“promising to file suit.”[42]
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
A
complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a
mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the
court to the extent that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v.
Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an
in forma pauperis complaint make and rule on its own
motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshal
to serve the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(c)(3). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. The
Ninth Circuit has noted that “[t]he language of §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As the
Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma
pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage the
filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon,
baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not
initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Under
Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district
court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that
a complaint include a “short and plain statement”
showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint need not contain
“detailed factual allegations, ” but the
plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his
entitle[ment] to relief, ” which “requires more
than labels and conclusions”; a mere “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is
insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
In
determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule
12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily limited to the face of the
complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the
complaint must be taken as true and reasonable inferences
drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff.
Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38
(9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that
“the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has
not alleged.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc.
v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526
(1983). “Nor is the court required to accept as true
allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted
deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001). Courts liberally construe a complaint filed
by a party who is representing himself. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
When
dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, the Ninth
Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court
should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the
pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading
could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other
facts.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (internal
quotations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Mr.
Torres's complaint fails to state a claim against Ms.
Voltz, the California Supreme Court Office of the Clerk, John
Does 1-10, and Jane Does 1-10. First, the Eleventh Amendment
bars Mr. Torres's claims against all defendants. Second,
Ms. Voltz and the Doe defendants have quasi-judicial
immunity.
1.
The Eleventh Amendment
Mr.
Torres brings federal constitutional claims under the First,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments against all
defendants.[43] The Eleventh Amendment bars these
claims.
The
Eleventh Amendment bars a lawsuit against a state or its
agencies absent the state's consent or abrogation of
immunity by Congress. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S.
265, 276-77 (1986). Section 1983 did not abrogate the
Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states. Quernn v.
Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979). California has not
waived ...