Anderson v. San Francisco Probation Department et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/18/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALFRED J. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
SAN FRANCISCO PROBATION
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-04509-JD

Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION

15
16

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

18

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

20

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

22

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

23

Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

26

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

27

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

28

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

1

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

2

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

4

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

5

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

6

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

7

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

8
9
10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

LEGAL CLAIMS

12

Plaintiff alleges that probation officers and judges improperly handled his case. A state

13

judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in his judicial

14

capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions

15

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit for damages, not just from

16

an ultimate assessment of damages. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). Whether

17

an act by a judge is a judicial one relates to (1) the nature and function of the act and not the act

18

itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to (2) the expectations of

19

the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435

20

U.S. 349, 362 (1978). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was

21

in error, was done maliciously, or in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability

22

only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Id. at 356-57 (citing Bradley v.

23

Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351 (1872)).

24

The Ninth Circuit has held that probation officers possess an absolute judicial immunity

25

from damage suits under § 1983 for official functions bearing a close association to the judicial

26

process. Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 156-58 (9th Cir. 1985). The United States Supreme

27

Court has taken a “functional approach” to the question of whether absolute immunity applies in a

28

given situation, meaning that it looks to “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of
2

1

the actor who performed it.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 (1993) (quoting

2

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988)). Thus, state actors are granted absolute immunity

3

from damages liability in suits under § 1983 only for actions taken while performing a duty

4

functionally comparable to one for which officials were immune at common law. Miller v.

5

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the common law, judges, prosecutors, trial

6

witnesses, and jurors were absolutely immune for such critical functions. Id. at 896.

7

Plaintiff states that he was arrested, booked, and arraigned without a proper case number,

8

case tracking, and no bail. He states that the judge refused to supply a warrant with her signature

9

or a minute order, but still continued the arraignment. He contends that he was illegally
committed to a Behavioral Health Court and that the Department of Probation is not using a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proper authorization form in supervising him. Plaintiff seeks money damages and to be released

12

from custody. To the extent plaintiff seeks to be released from custody he must file a habeas

13

petition.

14

immunity legal standards described above. Plaintiff must also provide more information regarding

15

the specific actions of the defendants and how they violated his constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION

16
17

Plaintiff’s claims for money damages are dismissed with leave to amend to address the

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must

18

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption

19

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

20

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

21

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

22

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

23

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

24

2.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

25

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

26

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

27
28
3

1

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

2

Civil Procedure 41(b).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2016

5
6
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ALFRED J. ANDERSON,

Case No. 16-cv-04509-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7
8
9
10

SAN FRANCISCO PROBATION
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on November 18, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Alfred J. Anderson
850 Bryant Street
Room 442
San Francisco, CA 94103

19
20
21

Dated: November 18, 2016

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
5