Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00174/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE O. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, JUDICIAL

COUNCIL ON PERFORMANCE; JON

FERGUSON, Judge; KAREN

MICHAELS, Deputy District Attorney,

San Bernardino County; ED O’BRIEN;

and MARK SOUP, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-0174 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. The defendants are the

Commission on Judicial Performance, a judge in San Bernardino County where plaintiff

was convicted, an assistant district attorney in San Bernardino County, and two of plaintiff’s

defense lawyers. Because this is a district where one of the defendants, the Commission

on Judicial Performance, “resides” or “may be found,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue

appears to be proper here. 

The Commission on Judicial Performance is a state agency. See Wolfe v.

Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364(9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of State of California and

Judicial Council of California because given the role of the Judicial Council, it is clearly a

state agency). The Eleventh Amendment thus bars suits against it in federal court. See

Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156,1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (11th

Amendment bars suit against state superior court and its employees). In addition, a

Section 1983 claim such as plaintiff presents here cannot be maintained because the

council is not a “person” as that word is used in Section 1983. Wolfe, 392 F.3d at 364. For

these reasons plaintiff’s claims against the commission will be dismissed, and because the

Case 4:07-cv-00174-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 3
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

commission cannot be sued in federal court, the dismissal will be without leave to amend. 

The remaining claims are against the judge who presided at plaintiff’s criminal trial,

the prosecutor, and plaintiff’s defense lawyers. Plaintiff requests only damages. 

Plaintiff contends that Judge Ferguson failed to follow California law and “denied me

a[n] interpretation of a statute.” He also may intend to complain that the judge conferred

with the prosecutor regarding plaintiff’s attempted disqualification of the judge, and that the

judge failed to disqualify himself. These claims are entirely about actions taken by Judge

Ferguson in the course of his judicial duties to try the case, so he is absolutely immune. 

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

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Because there is no way such claims arising out of the judge’s

performance of his duties could be actionable, the claims against him will be dismissed

without leave to amend.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Michaels, the prosecutor, was racist. When plaintiff

said in court that she “was Klu Klux Klan” and told her she could not “review [his] case”

while his disqualification motion was pending, she went into chambers and “argued for ten

minutes.” This claim involves actions taken by Michaels in the course of prosecuting

plaintiff, for which she is absolutely immune. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259,

272-73 (1993) (prosecutors absolutely immune from liability for conduct as "advocates"

during the initiation of criminal case and its presentation at trial). Because no amendment

could make such claims actionable in federal court, they will be dismissed without leave to

amend. 

Plaintiff’s claims against his defense attorneys also are not actionable under Section

1983, because defense attorneys, whether appointed or retained, do not act under color of

state law, an essential element of a Section 1983 claim. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454

U.S. 312, 317-25 (1981); Briley v. State of California, 564 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 1977)

(neither appointed nor retained defense attorneys act under color of state law). The claims

against them will be dismissed without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Case 4:07-cv-00174-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any defendant. For the reasons set out

above, the case is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\BROWN,R174.DSM

Case 4:07-cv-00174-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 3