Kreher v. Yuba County Superior Court, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/2/14 ORDERING that the hearing set for July 7, 2014 is vacated; the May 28, 2014 request for judicial notice by defendants Yuba County Superior Court, Third District Court of Appeals for the State of Cal ifornia, and Alana Adams (ECF No. 5-2) is denied; the May 28, 2014 motion to dismiss by defendants Yuba County Superior Court, Third District Court of Appeals of the State of California, and Alana Adams (ECF No. 5 is granted; the June 9, 2014 motion to dismiss by defendant County of Yuba (ECF No. 6 is granted; and this action is DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DETLEF KREHER,

12
13
14
15
16

No.

CIV. S-14-962 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

YUBA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT;
COUNTY OF YUBA; THIRD
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
ALANA ADAMS and DOES 1 to
100,

17
Defendants.
18
19
20

Plaintiff Detlef Kreher is proceeding through counsel with

21

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

defendants Yuba County Superior Court Clerk Alana Adams, Yuba

23

County Superior Court, County of Yuba (County), and Third

24

District Court of Appeal of the State of California (Third

25

District Court of Appeal) violated his federal constitutional

26

rights to due process and access to the courts.

27

raises a state law claim.

28
1

Plaintiff claims

Plaintiff also

1

On May 28, 2014, defendants Yuba County Superior Court,

2

Third District Court of Appeal, and Alana Adams (hereafter “court

3

defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

4

P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 5).

5

a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No.

6

6).

7

motion filed by the court defendants (ECF No. 10).

8

not filed an opposition to the motion filed by the County.

9

June 26, 2014, the court defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 12).

10

The motions are noticed for hearing on July 7, 2014 before

On June 9, 2014, defendant County filed

On June 19, 2014, plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Plaintiff has

11

the undersigned.

12

under submission on the papers and resolved without oral

13

argument.

14

I.

On

15

Good cause appearing, the motions are taken

See Local Rule 230(g) (E.D.Cal.)

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed April 18, 2014 (ECF No. 1),

16

contains the following allegations.

17

2009, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Yuba County Superior Court

18

seeking money damages arising out of a vehicle collision.

19

Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 3.

20

Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment against

21

plaintiff and entered judgment.

22

plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal.

23

On or about January 30,

On January 19, 2011, the Yuba County

Id.

On January 28, 2011,
Id.

On September 15, 2011, following an unsuccessful appellate

24

mediation, plaintiff timely filed a designation of record in the

25

Yuba County Superior Court.

26

respondent in the state court action “to use the original

27

superior court file under California Rules of Court Rule 8.128.”

28

Id. at 3-4.

Id.

Plaintiff stipulated with the

On September 16, 2011, plaintiff’s counsel spoke
2

1

with defendant Alana Adams, “who assured Plaintiff’s counsel that

2

the original superior court file would be sent to the Third

3

District Court of Appeal.”

4

and costs, but defendant Adams did not include the original

5

superior court file when she sent the record to the Third

6

District Court of Appeal.

7

Id. at 4.

Plaintiff paid the fees

Id.

On February 7, 2013, after filing the opening brief

8

plaintiff’s counsel discovered that defendant Adams had not sent

9

the superior court file to the court of appeal.

Id.

On February

10

11, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel moved to strike the clerk’s

11

transcript and for an order requiring defendant Adams to provide

12

the Third District Court of Appeal with the original superior

13

court file.

14

state court action moved to dismiss the appeal based on an

15

inadequate record and insufficient citations in the opening

16

brief.

17

opposition to the motion, noting the February 11, 2013 motion.

18

Id.

19

Id.

Id.

On February 13, 2013, the respondent in the

On February 27, 2013, plaintiff filed an

On March 7, 2013, the Third District Court of Appeal denied

20

plaintiff’s February 11, 2013 motion and dismissed the appeal.

21

Id.

22

in the Third District Court of Appeal.

23

argued that the inadequate record was due to defendant Adams’

24

failure to perform her duty to transmit the original file to the

25

court of appeal and that the time to file the opening brief had

26

not commenced under court rules because the record had never

27

actually been filed in the court of appeal.

28

29, 2013, the Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition

On March 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing

3

Id.

Therein, plaintiff

Id. at 5.

On March

1

for rehearing.

2

County Superior Court ever provided notice to plaintiff or

3

plaintiff’s counsel that the record had not been properly sent to

4

the court of appeal.

5

Id.

Neither defendant Adams nor defendant Yuba

Id.

Defendant Adams failed to transmit the record as specified

6

by plaintiff and required under California Rules of Court 8.128,

7

and she, the Yuba County Superior Court, and the County of Yuba

8

are liable for this failure.

9

defendant Adams’ violation of California Rules of Court Rule

Id.

They also are liable for

10

8.140(a), which requires the clerk to notify by mail any party

11

who “fails to timely do an act required to procure the record”

12

that it must do the necessary act within fifteen days.

13

The Third District Court of Appeal violated California Rule of

14

Court 8.140(b) by dismissing the appeal.

15

Id. at 6.

Id. at 7.

Plaintiff claims the foregoing violated his right to due

16

process and his First Amendment right to access the courts.

17

Plaintiff claims that he “has suffered injury, loss, and damage

18

in that his valid appeal was dismissed” resulting “in the loss of

19

his valid claim for money damages” in the underlying state court

20

action.

21

defendant Yuba County Superior Court for negligent hiring,

22

training, supervision, and retention.

23

Id. at 8.

Plaintiff also raises a claim against

Id. at 9.

Plaintiff seeks general damages, special damages,

24

attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and costs.

25

also demanded a jury trial.

26

II.

27
28

Plaintiff has

STANDARDS FOR A RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
A dismissal motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) challenges

a complaint’s compliance with the federal pleading requirements.
4

1

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short

2

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

3

entitled to relief.”

4

“‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which

5

it rests.’”

6

(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

7

The complaint must give the defendant

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

To meet this requirement, the complaint must be supported by

8

factual allegations.

9

(2009).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

Moreover, this court “must accept as true all of the

10

factual allegations contained in the complaint.”

11

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

12

Erickson v.

“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a

13

complaint,” neither legal conclusions nor conclusory statements

14

are themselves sufficient, and such statements are not entitled

15

to a presumption of truth.

16

Twombly therefore prescribe a two-step process for evaluation of

17

motions to dismiss.

18

conclusory factual allegations, and then determines whether these

19

allegations, taken as true and construed in the light most

20

favorable to the plaintiff, “plausibly give rise to an

21

entitlement to relief.”

22

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

Iqbal and

The court first identifies the non-

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

“Plausibility,” as it is used in Twombly and Iqbal, does not

23

refer to the likelihood that a pleader will succeed in proving

24

the allegations.

25

conclusory factual allegations, when assumed to be true, “allow[

26

] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant

27

is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

28

“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability

Instead, it refers to whether the non-

5

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

1

requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that

2

a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.

3

at 557).

4

by lacking a cognizable legal theory or by lacking sufficient

5

facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.

6

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

7

III.

8
9

A complaint may fail to show a right to relief either

Balistreri v.

ANALYSIS
As noted above, on June 9, 2014, the County of Yuba filed a

motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).1

10

Plaintiff has not opposed the County’s motion.

11

motion will be granted.

12

Accordingly, the

In addition, in his opposition to the court defendants’

13

motion to dismiss plaintiff concedes that the Eleventh Amendment

14

bars his claims against the Yuba County Superior Court and the

15

Third District Court of Appeal and agrees to dismissal of those

16

claims.

17

That will be the order.

Pls.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dism. (ECF No. 10) at 1.2

18

Remaining for resolution by the court is the motion to

19

dismiss the two constitutional claims against Alana Adams.3

20

Plaintiff sues defendant Adams in her official capacity.

21

Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 2.

See

Defendants have not asserted

22
23
24
25

1

In the motion, the County contends that it has not been served with the
complaint. Mem. of County of Yuba in Support of Mot. Dism. (ECF No. 6-1) at
1. The County expressly states that it is not waiving the defense of
insufficient service of process but does not seek dismissal on that basis.
Id. at 1-2.

2

26
27

Plaintiff’s concession is entirely appropriate. California’s courts are an
“arm of the state” protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Franceschi v.
Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995).
3

28

Plaintiff’s third cause of action is solely against the Yuba County Superior
Court.

6

1

Eleventh Amendment immunity as a defense to the claims against

2

defendant Adams and plaintiff asserts that the Eleventh Amendment

3

does not bar those claims.

4

a limitation on federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Even when

5

neither party has raised an objection to a federal court's

6

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has an obligation to

7

consider the issue sua sponte, and to consider it fully.”

8

v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing

9

Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S.

10

However, “[t]he eleventh amendment is

Demery

413, 418–22, 31 S.Ct. 460, 461–63, 55 L.Ed. 521 (1981)).

11

Plaintiff alleges that “[a]t all times herein relevant,

12

defendant Alana Adams was the Clerk of the Yuba County Superior

13

Court, and was acting in that capacity and under color of state

14

law.

15

Defendant Alana Adams is sued herein in her official capacity.”

16

The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for money damages against

17

state officers sued in their official capacity.

18

Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1350 (9th Cir. 1982)(citations

19

omitted)(“Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to actions against

20

state officers sued in their official capacities because such

21

actions are, in essence, actions against the government entity of

22

which the officer is an agent”); see also Pena v. Gardner, 976

23

F.2d 469, 473 (9th Cir. 1992)(citation omitted)(“An official sued

24

in his official capacity has the same immunity as the state, and

25

is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity.”)

26

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Adams in her official

27

capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and will be

28

dismissed for that reason.

In her position as Court Clerk, Alana Adams.

7

[Sic]

See Jackson v.

Consequently,

1

Plaintiff’s decision to sue defendant Alana Adams in her

2

official capacity and the Eleventh Amendment bar to such suit may

3

be dispositive of the motion at bar.

4

F.3d 857, 859-860 (9th Cir. 1995) (suit against Superintendent of

5

Schools found to be official capacity suit where parties had

6

stipulated that Superintendent, in his official capacity, would

7

be only defendant remaining after dismissal of other defendants

8

and stipulation was expressly conditioned on inclusion of the

9

phrase “in his official capacity”; suit barred by Eleventh

Cf. Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73

10

Amendment, and amendment to change capacity denied as untimely).

11

In an abundance of caution, the court considers whether plaintiff

12

has also pled a personal capacity claim against defendant Adams.

13

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has

14

held that allegations that an individual state employee, acting

15

under color of state law, violated a plaintiff’s constitutional

16

rights is sufficient to state a claim against the state employee

17

in his or her personal capacity.

18

1182, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999).

19

provide immunity for such claims.

20

complaint alleges that defendant Adams, acting under color of

21

state law, violated plaintiff’s rights to due process and court

22

access.

23

rise to personal capacity claims, they are not barred by the

24

Eleventh Amendment.

25

quasi-judicial immunity.

26

See Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d

The Eleventh Amendment does not
Id. at 1185.

Plaintiff’s

To the extent these allegations are sufficient to give

They are, however, barred by the doctrine of

“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from

27

damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that

28

are an integral part of the judicial process.”
8

Mullis v. U.S.

1

Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th

2

Cir. 1987).

3

does not abrogate judicial immunity, even if it results in ‘grave

4

procedural errors.’”

5

349, 359 (1978)).

6

an integral part of the judicial process.

7

based on allegations that defendant Adams committed errors in

8

performing this integral task, and he seeks only money damages.

9

Even assuming arguendo that plaintiff’s allegations were

“[A] mistake or an act in excess of jurisdiction

Id. (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.

Transmitting records to an appellate court is
Plaintiff’s claims are

10

sufficient to state one or more claims for violation of his

11

constitutional rights against defendant Adams in her personal

12

capacity, a finding this court does not make, defendant Adams is

13

entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from liability on

14

such claims.4

15

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

The hearing set for July 7, 2014 is vacated;

17

2.

The May 28, 2014 request for judicial notice by

18

defendants Yuba County Superior Court, Third District Court of

19

Appeals for the State of California, and Alana Adams (ECF No. 5-

20

2) is denied;

21

3.

The May 28, 2014 motion to dismiss by defendants Yuba

22

County Superior Court, Third District Court of Appeals of the

23

State of California, and Alana Adams (ECF No. 5) is granted;

24

4.

The June 9, 2014 motion to dismiss by defendant County

25

of Yuba (ECF No. 6) is granted; and

26

4

27
28

Defendants have included with their motion a request for judicial notice of
records from the state court proceedings. Because it is apparent that all
defendants are immune from liability in this action, the court declines to
consider evidence outside the scope of the pleadings. Defendants’ request for
judicial notice is therefore denied.

9

1

5.

2

DATED:

This action is dismissed.
July 2, 2014.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10