Sermeno v. Cahoon et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LARRY A. SERMENO,
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff,

12

Case No. 16-05896 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

13
14

C. CAHOON, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye of the Supreme

20

Court of California and two clerks within her court. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed

21

in forma pauperis shall be addressed in a separate order.

22

DISCUSSION

23
24
25

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

26

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

27

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

28

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

1

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

2

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

3

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

4
5

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

6

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

7

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

8

B.

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff claims that Defendant C. Cahoon, a deputy clerk at the Supreme Court of

10

California, denied him access to the courts by refusing to file documents Plaintiff filed on

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

or around April 17, 2015. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Frank A.

12

McGuire, the former Court Administrator and Clerk of the Supreme Court of California,

13

failed to train his deputy clerks on “their federal obligation to always file documents,” and

14

that he implemented an unconstitutional policy that authorizes deputy clerks to not file

15

documents. Plaintiff names Justice Cantil-Sakauye of the Supreme Court of California as

16

a defendant, but makes no factual allegations against her. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff seeks

17

damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. (Id. at 3.)

18

With respect to any claims against Justice Cantil-Sakauye, as a state judge, she is

19

absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in her judicial

20

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

21

actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit for damages,

22

not just from an ultimate assessment of damages. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,

23

526 (1985). Accordingly, any claims against Justice Cantil-Sakauye for acts performed in

24

her judicial capacity must be dismissed.

25

The clerks of the California Supreme Court are also immune from suit. The

26

Supreme Court has recognized that some officials perform special functions which,

27

because of their similarity to functions that would have been immune when Congress

28

2

1

enacted § 1983, deserve absolute protection from damages liability. Buckley v.

2

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268-69 (1993). This immunity extends to individuals

3

performing functions necessary to the judicial process. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889,

4

895-96 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the common law, judges, prosecutors, trial witnesses, and

5

jurors were absolutely immune for such critical functions. Id. at 896. The Court has taken

6

a “functional approach” to the question of whether absolute immunity applies in a given

7

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

8

the actor who performed it.” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 269 (1993) (quoting Forrester v. White,

9

484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988)). Accordingly, state actors are granted absolute immunity from
damages liability in suits under § 1983 for actions taken while performing a duty

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

335 F.3d at 897. Here, the clerks’ declination to file is necessarily a part of the judicial

13

process and therefore they are immune from suit for damages.

14

CONCLUSION

15
16
17
18

For the reasons state above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

2/3/2017
Dated: _____________________

________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25

Order of Dismissal
PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\05896Sermeno_dism

26
27
28

3