Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04515/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04515-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND J. RAYMOND,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-4515 PJH

v. ORDER

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant, et al.,

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Raymond J. Raymond filed this action on September 24, 2009, against

defendants City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”); Department 14 of the Superior

Court of California, County of San Francisco; and Donald T. Bergerson. Also on

September 24, 2009, plaintiff filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

On October 19, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to state a claim. On November 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a first

amended complaint (“FAC”), also against CCSF, Department 14 of the San Francisco

Superior Court, and Donald T. Bergerson. On March 5, 2010, the court issued an order

dismissing the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), again for failure to state a claim. In

both the October 19, 2009 and March 5, 2010 orders, the court provided plaintiff with an

explanation of the deficiencies of the respective complaints.

On April 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). In the SAC,

plaintiff asserts that defendants violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Named as defendants are CCSF; the San

Francisco Police Department; the Chief of Police of the San Francisco Police Department;

San Francisco Police Officers Lory Dutra, Lorain Lombardo, Keith (Star 2222), and

Case 4:09-cv-04515-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

2

Giancomo, and Captain Goldberg; “the officers of CAD report 090 723 776;” Parole Officer

William “Bill” Hazelton; San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris; San Francisco

Superior Court Judge Lorretta Giorgi; and attorney Donald T. Bergerson. 

The court has reviewed the SAC, and finds that it must be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff alleges five causes of action – a claim

of unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and four claims

of due process violations. 

In the first cause of action, plaintiff alleges unlawful search and seizure based on an

incident on April 24, 2008, involving several police officers, only one of whom is named (a

Sgt. Galande). The allegations are not clear, but it appears that plaintiff is asserting that he

was arrested without probable cause. However, much of the first cause of action seems to

involve plaintiff’s claim that he has been unable to obtain records from the police

concerning the arrest.

In the second cause of action, plaintiff alleges a procedural due process violation,

based on the preparation by Sgt. Galande of a “false police report” (report 080 370 243)

and the preparation by Officer Keith (star 2222) of a second false or misleading police

report (report 090 243 044). However, plaintiff does not explain (in any coherent fashion)

how or in what manner the police reports were false, or how the preparation of the allegedly

false police reports violated his constitutional rights.

In the third cause of action, plaintiff alleges due process violations based on the

conduct of judicial proceedings by Judge Loretta Giorgi of the San Francisco Superior

Court. The court finds that this cause of action must be dismissed, either for failure to state

a claim or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

To the extent that plaintiff is seeking damages, this claim (and any claim against a

Superior Court Judge based on the conduct of judicial proceedings) is barred, because a

state court judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in

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

immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Case 4:09-cv-04515-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

3

To the extent that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring the

federal court to supervise ongoing state judicial proceedings, the court will refrain from

issuing any such injunction as a matter of comity. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 539

(1984); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971).

To the extent that plaintiff is seeking what amounts to an appeal of an order issued

by Judge Giorgi, the claim is barred. A federal district court is prohibited from exercising

subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is “a de facto appeal” from a state court

judgment. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). A federal district

court may not examine claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court decisions,

“even where the party does not directly challenge the merits of the state court's decision

but rather brings an indirect challenge based on constitutional principles.” Bianchi v.

Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S.

Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006). 

In the fourth cause of action, plaintiff asserts that his due process rights were

violated by officers at Mission Police Station, when they refused to provide him with copies

of police reports. Again, as with the claim in the second cause of action that certain police

officers prepared false police reports, plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing how this

alleged failure to provide him with copies of police reports violated his constitutional rights.

In the fifth cause of action, plaintiff asserts that defendant Donald T. Bergerson, who

apparently represented plaintiff in a criminal trial, violated plaintiff’s due process rights by

“using barratry to enable felonies” and by withholding information, either from plaintiff or

from Judge Giorgi. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements – that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of

state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811

F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, plaintiff’s allegations against attorney Donald Bergerson must be dismissed

because claims of legal malpractice do not come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 

Case 4:09-cv-04515-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

4

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981). Moreover, services performed by

an attorney in connection with a lawsuit do not constitute action under color of state law. 

See id.; see also Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 919-20 (1984) (public defenders acting as

attorneys for criminal defendants do not act under color of state law, an essential element

of an action under § 1983); Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (attorneys

are private, not state, actors).

In accordance with the foregoing, the claims asserted against Judge Giorgi and

Donald Bergerson (and the third and fifth causes of action) are dismissed with prejudice. 

As for the first, second, and fourth causes of action, the court will grant plaintiff one

additional opportunity to amend the complaint. 

The third amended complaint may not add new causes of action or additional

defendants without leave of court. The remaining claims must clarify what specific actions,

taken by which specific individuals, are alleged to have violated plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. In addition, to the extent that plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim of municipal

liability against CCSF, the third amended complaint must allege facts showing that the

alleged constitutional violations were caused by an official policy or practice of CCSF. 

In addition, all references to plaintiff’s prior state court action against the California

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) (San Francisco Superior Court case No.

CPF-07-507715) shall be omitted from the third amended complaint, as those claims are

either time-barred, or were resolved in the state court action. 

The third amended complaint shall be filed no later than June 14, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04515-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 4