Rogers v. County of San Diego, California et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting Defendant San Diego County's 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting Defendant Lantz Lewis's 9 Motion to Dismiss. Pla's claims against Dft Judge Lewis are dismissed w/ prejudice. Pla's claim s against San Diego County are dismissed w/o prejudice. Pla is granted leave to file an amended complaint by 1/28/2013. Should Pla file an amended complaint, it may only include claims against San Diego County and shall not include claims against Judge Lewis. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 1/2/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
BRIAN F. ROGERS,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1684- IEG (MDD)

10
Plaintiff,

ORDER:

11
1.
12
vs.

GRANTING DEFENDANT LANTZ
LEWIS’S MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE;

13
[Doc. No. 9]
14
2.
15
16
17
18

THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA; THE SAN DIEGO
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; and THE
HONORABLE LANTZ LEWIS, in his
official capacity as Superior Court Judge of
the County of San Diego,

GRANTING DEFENDANT SAN
DIEGO COUNTY’S MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

[Doc. No. 8]
3.

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23

Before the Court are motions to dismiss by Defendants San Diego County,1 [Doc. No. 8],
the Honorable Lantz Lewis, San Diego County Superior Court Judge, [Doc. No. 9]. For the reason
below, Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND

24
25
26

This 42 U.S.C. §1983 case arises out of pro se Plaintiff Brian F. Rogers’s February 2012
small claims action before Judge Lewis concerning repairs to Plaintiff’s car. [See Doc. No. 1.] In

27
28

1

Defendant San Diego County is also sued as “San Diego County Sheriff’s Office.”
[See Doc. No. 1.]
-1-

12cv1684

1

the underlying case, Plaintiff argued for $993 in damages, but Judge Lewis awarded only $200

2

with an option to take the car back to the small claims defendant for further repair. [Id. at 4-6.]

3

San Diego County sheriffs allegedly collected approximately $400 from the small claims

4

defendant but refused to issue any of those funds to Plaintiff given a balance of offsetting damages

5

awards against him. [Id. at 9.]

6

Based on these facts, Plaintiff commenced the present action, alleging that Judge Lewis’s

7

small claims judgment, and the execution of that judgment by San Diego County sheriffs, reflect

8

racial bias and thus constitute violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. [See, e.g., id. at 6

9

(“Plaintiff believes Judge Lantz Lewis is a white racist that should be removed from the bench.”),

10

8 (“Judge Lantz Lewis has a distrust for African American people which allows him to import

11

judgments and rulings which have no foundation . . . The Judge simply masquerades the real

12

reason for his racist behavior through illogical racist conclusions . . .”).] Judge Lewis filed a

13

motion to dismiss on grounds of judicial immunity from suit. [Doc. No. 9.] San Diego County

14

filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. [Doc. No. 8.] Plaintiff filed a single

15

opposition, [Doc. No. 14], and both Defendants filed replies, [Doc. Nos. 10, 12].

16
17

DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

18

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

19

556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). Motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

20

12(b)(6) test the sufficiency of this required showing. New Mexico State Investment Council v.

21

Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). “Dismissal is proper when the

22

complaint does not make out a cognizable legal theory or does not allege sufficient facts to support

23

a cognizable legal theory.” Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th

24

Cir. 2011). Though pro se complaints enjoy “the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

25

338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), Rule 8 still “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-

26

unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

27
28

Even affording every benefit of the doubt, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege sufficient
facts to support any cognizable legal theory. No facts are pled as to how Defendants’ conduct
-2-

12cv1684

1

could reflect racial bias or otherwise violate Plaintiff’s civil rights. Nor is any harm alleged, let

2

alone attributed to any conduct by Defendants. Rather, the entirety of Plaintiff’s allegations

3

amounts to plain dissatisfaction with single ruling by Judge Lewis in Plaintiff’s small claims

4

action. Therefore, to the extent and for the additional reasons specified below, Defendants’ motion

5

to dismiss is GRANTED.

6

1.

Claims Against Judge Lewis

7

“If an [party] has absolute immunity from [a] § 1983 suit, the trial court must dismiss any

8

civil rights suit filed against that [party] for actions taken within the scope of his or her official

9

duty.” Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1297 n.4 (9th Cir. 1981). “Judges are absolutely

10

immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.”

11

Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). “The judicial or quasi-judicial

12

immunity available to federal officers is not limited to immunity from damages, but extends to

13

actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.” Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240,

14

1243 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 62 (9th Cir. 1974) (“A

15

seemingly impregnable fortress in American Jurisprudence is the absolute immunity of judges

16

from civil liability for acts done by them within their judicial jurisdiction.”).

17

Here, Plaintiff’s claims arise entirely from Judge Lewis’s ruling in a small claims action.

18

[See Doc. No. 1.] Such routine judicial rulings plainly constitute “judicial acts taken within the

19

jurisdiction of [his] court,” and thus Judge Lewis is absolutely immune to Plaintiff’s claims.

20

Schucker, 846 F.2d at 1204. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Lewis are hereby

21

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

22

2.

Claims Against San Diego County

23

“[U]nder § 1983, local governments are responsible only for their own illegal acts,” and

24

thus “are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees’ actions.”2 Connick v.

25

Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, “Plaintiffs who seek

26

to impose liability on local governments under § 1983 must prove that action pursuant to official

27
2

28

Unlike Judge Lantz, San Diego County does not enjoy immunity here. See Leatherman
v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993)
(“municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit-either absolute or qualified-under § 1983.”).
-3-

12cv1684

1

municipal policy caused their injury.” Id; see also Los Angeles County, Cal. v. Humphries, 131 S.

2

Ct. 447, 449 (2010) (“[C]ivil rights plaintiffs suing a municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

3

must show that their injury was caused by a municipal policy or custom.”). Proof of isolated

4

events does not suffice. Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1995).

5

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against San Diego County rest entirely on a single event - San

6

Diego County’s refusal to issue funds to Plaintiff given a balance of offsetting judgments against

7

him. [Doc. No. 1 at 9.] And even most liberally construed, the complaint fails to allege any facts

8

suggesting how this isolated event could reflect a particular policy or practice, much less based on

9

racial bias. [See id.] As such, Plaintiff fails to state a §1983 claim against San Diego County.

10

See Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1359. Still, because amendment is not necessarily futile, Plaintiff’s

11

§1983 claims against San Diego County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

12
13

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Lewis are DISMISSED WITH

14

PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s claims against San Diego County are DISMISSED WITHOUT

15

PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint no later than January 28,

16

2013. To be clear, should Plaintiff file an amended complaint, it may only include claims against

17

San Diego County and shall not include any claims against Judge Lewis hereby dismissed with

18

prejudice.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

January 2, 2013

______________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

12cv1684