The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 EDWARD LITTLEJOHN, Case No. 2:24-cv-03840-JWH-BFM
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER ACCEPTING
13 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT,
15 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA,
16 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF STATE
HOSPITALS,
17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE,
18 M.S.H-METROPOLITAN STATE
HOSPITAL,
19 ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL,
LESLIE E. BROWN, Los Angeles
20 County Superior Court, Superior
Court Judge,
21 PATRICIA GUERRERO, The Judicial
Council of California and Chief
22 Justice,
STEPHANIE CLENDENIN,
23 California Department of State
Hospitals and Directors,
24 MICHAEL BARSOM,
MSH-Metropolitan State Hospital
25 and Executive Director,
JASON BLACK, ASH-Atascadero
26 State Hospital and Executive
Director,
27 GEORGE GASCON, District Attorney,
JANE DOE 1, Deputy District
28
1 JOHN DOE 1, Deputy District
Attorney,
2
Defendants.
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
1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second
2 Amended Complaint, the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s
3 Report and Recommendation, and the Objections to the Report and
4 Recommendation. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions
5 of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The
6 Court ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge with one
7 exception.
8 The Judicial Defendants objected to the Report and Recommendation to
9 the extent that it does not recommend the dismissal of the ADA and
10 Rehabilitation Act claims alleged against the Superior Court, the Judicial
11 Council, and the individual judges sued in their official capacities. The Court
12 agrees that Judge Brown and Chief Justice Guerrero’s judicial immunity extends
13 to the official capacity claims, and, therefore, it DISMISSES those claims with
14 prejudice. See Duval v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 & n.5 (concluding
15 that judicial immunity barred ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against state
16 court judge sued in his official capacity). Likewise, the Superior Court and the
17 Judicial Council are entitled to judicial immunity because any claims against
18 them are based upon Judge Brown or Justice Guerrero’s conduct. See Lund v.
19 Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 972 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming the dismissal of ADA claims
20 brought against the Los Angeles Superior Court based upon a respondeat superior
21 theory, because the state judge’s judicial immunity extended to such claims).
22 Accordingly, the ADA and Rehabilitation claims against all Judicial Defendants
23 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
24 The objections of Plaintiff Edward Littlejohn to the Report and
25 Recommendation, however, do not merit any changes to the Magistrate Judge’s
26 findings or recommendations. Littlejohn objects that he has plausible federal
27
28
1 claims.1 Those objections are not responsive to the Report’s thorough analysis
2 that most of Littlejohn’s claims are deficient in ways that cannot be cured by
3 amendment.2
4 Littlejohn further objects that judicial immunity should not apply if a
5 judge acts without jurisdiction.3 But the acts of which Littlejohn complains are
6 judicial acts, taken by judicial officers while they were presiding over his case or
7 while they were supervising the work of state court judges, for which those
8 Judicial Defendants are immune.4 Thus, the Judicial Defendants are entitled to
9 immunity to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities.5
10 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
11 1. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED, with the
12 exception described above.
13 2. Littlejohn’s request for judicial notice of his previous federal habeas
14 corpus petition and relevant state court documents is GRANTED.
15 3. The Judicial Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 87] is
16 GRANTED, and Defendants Judge Leslie E. Brown, Chief Justice Patricia
17 Guerrero, the Los Angeles Superior Court, and the Judicial Council of
18 California are DISMISSED with prejudice.
19 4. The State Hospital and County Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
20 [ECF Nos. 82 & 85] are GRANTED in part as follows:
21
22
23
1 Pl.’s Notice of Objs. (the “Objections”) [ECF No. 113] 2-4.
24
2 Interim Report and Recommendation (the “Interim R&R”) [ECF
25
No. 110] 2.
26 3 Objections 5-6.
27 4 Second Am. Compl. [ECF No. 60] 3-4.
28
1 a. the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its
2 entirety; and
3 b. all claims except for claims brought under the ADA or the
4 Rehabilitation Act brought against the California Department of State
5 Hospitals; the Metropolitan State Hospital; Atascadero State Hospital;
6 the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office; and individuals
7 Stephanie Clendenin, Michael Barsom, Jason Black, former District
8 Attorney George Gascon, and Doe Deputy District Attorneys to the
9 extent that those individuals are named in their official capacities are
10 DISMISSED with prejudice.
11 5. The Motions of the State Hospital and County Defendants are
12|| otherwise DENIED without prejudice.
13 6. No later than August 8, 2025, Littlejohn is DIRECTED to file a
14|| Third Amended Complaint remedying the deficiencies detailed herein. To be
clear, any claim that has been dismissed with prejudice may not be reasserted in
16 || the Third Amended Complaint.
17 7. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve this Order on all counsel or
18 || parties of record.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
: MO
21\| Dated: July 7, 2025 ®
22 GNIDED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28