“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the 17 balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine ... will point toward 18 declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”
How later courts described this case
- “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the 17 balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine ... will point toward 18 declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”
- “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 7 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DAJON DANIEL, No. 2:24-cv-1358 CSK P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 E. BRADLEY NELSON, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action
18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 20, 2024, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with
19 leave to amend. (ECF No. 4.) Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF
20 No. 7.) For the reasons stated herein, this Court recommends that this action be dismissed.
21 Screening Standards
22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
24 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally
25 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
27 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
1 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an
2 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
3 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
4 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
5 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
6 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably
7 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at
8 1227.
9 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain
10 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the
11 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic
12 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
13 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a
14 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations
15 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.
16 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the
17 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v.
18 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal
19 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as
20 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the
21 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
22 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
23 Claims in Amended Complaint
24 Named as defendants are E. Bradley Nelson, Wendy G. Getty, Yisha Fan and the Solano
25 County Superior Court. (ECF No. 7 at 1.) It is clear that defendants Nelson and Getty are
26 Superior Court Judges.
27 In claim one, plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2024, plaintiff was scheduled for
28 arraignment. (Id. at 3.) Prior to arraignment, plaintiff was charged with kidnapping, child abuse
1 and evading. (Id.) Plaintiff’s bail was set at $101,000.00 (Id.) At the arraignment, defendant
2 Nelson revoked plaintiff’s Faretta waiver. (Id.) After plaintiff asked defendant Nelson if he
3 (defendant Nelson) was an Article 3 judge, defendant Nelson asked the district attorney, “How
4 many years do these charges carry?” (Id.) The district attorney responded, “twelve years.” (Id.)
5 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Nelson then began to prosecute plaintiff by saying that plaintiff
6 was a danger to public safety, if plaintiff got out he would kill somebody, and plaintiff committed
7 great bodily injury and pulled plaintiff’s girlfriend by the hair and onto the car. (Id.) Plaintiff
8 alleges that defendant Nelson then added new charges against plaintiff: battery on spouse,
9 disregard for public safety and great bodily injury. (Id.) Defendant Nelson then made plaintiff
10 “no bail.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after defendant Nelson scheduled plaintiff’s preliminary
11 hearing for April 16, 2024, the district attorney told him that he could not schedule a preliminary
12 hearing without scheduling a bail hearing for plaintiff. (Id.) As legal claims, plaintiff alleges
13 violation of the California Constitution, Article I, Section 12 and Amendment VI. (Id.)
14 In claim two, plaintiff alleges that on April 8, 2024, defendant Getty threatened to revoke
15 plaintiff’s Faretta waiver because plaintiff asked her if she was an Article 3 judge. (Id. at 7.)
16 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Getty revoked plaintiff’s Faretta waiver after finding plaintiff
17 incompetent. (Id.) On April 15, 2024, defendant Fan, an attorney, came to speak with plaintiff.
18 (Id.) Plaintiff told defendant Fan that he did not consent to having an attorney. (Id.) Defendant
19 Fan told plaintiff that he needed to be seen by a doctor to determine whether he was competent.
20 (Id.) After they went into court, defendant Fan told defendant Getty that she found plaintiff to be
21 mentally incompetent. (Id.) Defendant Getty then reset plaintiff’s preliminary hearing to May
22 10, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff did not speak to a doctor regarding his competency until May 9, 2024.
23 (Id.) On May 10, 2024, defendant Getty told plaintiff that he was incompetent. (Id.) Plaintiff
24 alleges that he has been in custody since March 28, 2024 and has not had a bail hearing or a
25 preliminary hearing. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Getty found plaintiff incompetent in
26 retaliation for plaintiff asking if she was an Article 3 judge. (Id.) As legal claims, plaintiff
27 alleges violation of Amendment VI and the California Constitution Article 1 section 15. (Id.)
28 In claim three, plaintiff alleges that defendant Superior Court failed to protect plaintiff
1 from human trafficking in violation of the Geneva Convention. (Id. at 5.)
2 As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages. (Id. at 6.)
3 Discussion
4 Claim One
5 As this Court informed plaintiff in the May 20, 2024 order, it is well established that a
6 state judge generally is “immune from suit for money damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9
7 (1991). This immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances. Id. at 11. “First, a judge
8 is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial
9 capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for actions though judicial in nature, taken in the
10 complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 11-12 (citations omitted). “[W]hether an action by a
11 judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate[s] to the nature of the action itself, i.e., whether it is a function
12 normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with
13 the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). A “complete
14 absence of all jurisdiction” means a clear lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Miller v. Davis, 521
15 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2008).
16 Plaintiff claims that defendant Nelson violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights when he
17 revoked plaintiff’s Faretta waiver, denied plaintiff bail and scheduled plaintiff’s preliminary
18 hearing without setting a bail hearing after plaintiff challenged rulings made by defendant Nelson
19 in plaintiff’s criminal case. These rulings were clearly made by defendant Nelson in his judicial
20 capacity and were within the scope of his jurisdiction as a Superior Court Judge. Accordingly,
21 defendant Nelson is entitled to judicial immunity as to these claims.
22 Plaintiff also claims that defendant Nelson added charges to plaintiff’s case. Filing
23 criminal charges is not a function normally performed by a Superior Court Judge. Cf. Ohman v.
24 County of Orange, 460 F3d.Apx. 649, 650 (9th Cir. 2011) (the filing of criminal charge by
25 prosecutor is conduct related to their role as advocate for the state). In the original complaint,
26 plaintiff also claimed that defendant Nelson added charges to plaintiff’s case. This Court
27 dismissed this claim with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to explain how defendant
28 Nelson added charges to plaintiff’s case. (ECF No. 4 at 4.) If plaintiff filed an amended
1 complaint, this Court directed plaintiff to address the specific actions taken by defendant Nelson
2 resulting in charges added to plaintiff’s case. (Id.)
3 In the amended complaint, plaintiff does not specifically address how defendant Nelson
4 allegedly added charges to plaintiff’s case. This Court reviewed the Solano County Superior
5 Court records in plaintiff’s pending criminal case, no. F24-00691.1 The record in case no. F24-
6 00691 reflects that the complaint, filed April 2, 2024, charged plaintiff with kidnapping, willful
7 cruelty to a child with possible injury/death, evading a peace officer with wanton disregard for
8 safety, and battery on a spouse. The complaint, filed by the prosecution, appears to contain the
9 charges plaintiff claims defendant Nelson added to plaintiff’s criminal case. Based on plaintiff’s
10 failure to plead specific facts in support of this claim and the Superior Court record contradicting
11 plaintiff’s claim, this Court recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendant
12 Nelson violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by adding charges to plaintiff’s criminal case.
13 Claim Two
14 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Getty violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights when she
15 wrongly rescheduled plaintiff’s preliminary hearing and made other rulings against plaintiff in
16 retaliation for plaintiff asking if defendant Getty was an Article 3 judge. The rulings made by
17 defendant Getty that plaintiff challenges in claim two were made in Getty’s judicial capacity and
18 within the scope of her jurisdiction as a Superior Court Judge. Accordingly, defendant Getty is
19 entitled to judicial immunity as to these claims. Miller, 502 U.S. at 9, 11-12.
20 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Fan wrongly told defendant Getty that plaintiff was
21 incompetent. Based on the allegations in claim two, it is clear that defendant Fan was appointed
22 by the court to represent plaintiff in his criminal case. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff is
23 required to show that (1) each defendant acted under color of state law and (2) each defendant
24 deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Benavidez v. Cnty. of San
25 Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Neither public defenders nor
26 attorneys appointed by the court to represent criminal defendants in place of public defenders are
27
1 This Court takes judicial notice of the Solano County Superior Court record of plaintiff’s
28 criminal case. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
1 state actors. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 320-25 (1981); Miranda v. Clark County,
2 Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003). For this reason, plaintiff’s claim that defendant Fan
3 violated his constitutional rights when Fan told defendant Getty that plaintiff was incompetent
4 should be dismissed.
5 Claim Three
6 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Solano County Superior Court violated the Geneva
7 Convention. Claim three should be dismissed because the Geneva Convention “does not create a
8 private right of action for private individuals to enforce its terms.” Nattah v. Bush, 770 F.Supp.2d
9 193, 204 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
10 Remaining State Law Claims
11 Plaintiff raises state law claims in claims one and two. Because this Court recommends
12 dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claims, this Court recommends that the Court decline to exercise
13 supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court
14 may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims
15 over which it has original jurisdiction); Sanford v. Member Works, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th
16 Cir. 2010) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the
17 balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine ... will point toward
18 declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”).
19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district
20 judge to this action; and
21 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.
22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
25 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that
27 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
28 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
1 | Dated: June 13, 2024
Cin □□□
CHI SOO KIM
3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5 || Dan1358.56
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28