Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-04003/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-04003-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WOMACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVIN NEWSOME, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-04003-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Rodney Womack, now in custody at the California State Prison in Corcoran, filed this pro 

se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the court for review 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

BACKGROUND

This action stems from rulings in an action for writ of habeas corpus filed by Rodney 

Womack in 2018. U.S. District Judge Freeman dismissed the habeas petition as an unauthorized 

second or successive petition and denied a certificate of appealability on January 22, 2019. Docket 

No. 1 at 39-43. Judges Tallman and Nguyen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later 

denied a certificate of appealability, and denied a motion to stay proceedings and for release. Id. at 

36. Ninth Circuit Judges Farris and Murguia denied a motion for reconsideration. Id. at 37. 

Womack alleges that Judges Freeman, Tallman, Nguyen, Farris, and Murguia refused to 

hold a “due process counsel hearing in connection with his two 1982 prior robbery conviction 

hearing” due to racial bias. Id. at 6. Womack further alleges that California Governor Newsom 

“should be held civilly liable because he’s responsible for the judges who violated plaintiff’s right 

to a counsel hearing.” Id. at 9.

Case 3:20-cv-04003-SI Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are 

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se complaints 

must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

A. Claims Against the Judges

The case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388, 396 (1971), “established that the victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a 

right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute 

conferring such a right.” Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980). The Supreme Court has 

recognized a Bivens claim in only three cases: Bivens (4th Amendment unreasonable search and 

seizure); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1979) (5th Amendment Due Process Clause 

gender discrimination); and Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 17-19 (1980) (8th Amendment

inadequate medical treatment). “These three cases -- Bivens, Davis, and Carlson – represent the 

only instances in which the [Supreme] Court has approved of an implied damages remedy under the 

Constitution itself.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1855 (2017). The Supreme Court has made 

clear that “expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity,” and will not be 

available if there are “‘special factors’ counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by 

Congress,” id. at 1848 (citation omitted).

Any claim against the five judge-defendants would have to be pursued under Bivens, if it 

could be pursued at all, because they are federal judges and therefore act under color of federal law 

rather than under color of state law. This court need not determine whether there could be a Bivens

claim for the wrongs alleged in the complaint because there is a problem with the complaint that 

cannot be overcome even if a right of action is found under Bivens for the wrongs alleged. 

Specifically, the five judges have absolute judicial immunity against Womack’s claims because their 

Case 3:20-cv-04003-SI Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

allegedly wrongful acts were actions done in their judicial capacity. A federal judge is absolutely 

immune from civil liability for acts performed in his or her judicial capacity; this immunity is not

limited to immunity from damages, but also extends to actions for declaratory, injunctive and other 

equitable relief. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996); Mullis v. U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying judicial immunity to actions under 

Bivens); see also Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967) (“Few doctrines were more solidly 

established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts 

committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, 

in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872).”). The claims against the five judges are 

barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. 

B. Claim Against The Governor

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 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). 

Any claim against California Governor Newsom would have to be pursued under § 1983, 

rather than under Bivens, because he acts under color of state law. Womack alleges that Governor 

Newsom should be held liable because he is “responsible” for the five judge-defendants. Docket 

No. 1 at 9. The problem for plaintiff is that, contrary to his allegation, the Governor of California 

is not responsible for and has no control over the federal judicial decision-making process. Under 

the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the U.S. Senate confirms, both District Judges 

and Circuit Judges. See U.S. Const. Art. II, §2 (the President “shall nominate, and by and with the 

Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, 

Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are 

not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law”). A claim is not stated 

against the Governor who played no role in the adjudication of Womack’s federal petition for writ 

of habeas corpus. 

Case 3:20-cv-04003-SI Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED because five of the defendants have absolute immunity against 

the claims alleged and the complaint fails to state a claim against the sixth defendant. Leave to 

amend is not granted because it would be futile: the defects in the complaint are of the sort that

cannot be cured by amendment. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-04003-SI Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 4