Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01684/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01684-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN F. ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1684- IEG (MDD)

ORDER:

1. GRANTING DEFENDANT LANTZ

LEWIS’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITH PREJUDICE;

[Doc. No. 9]

2. GRANTING DEFENDANT SAN

DIEGO COUNTY’S MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

[Doc. No. 8]

3. GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND.

vs.

THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

CALIFORNIA; THE SAN DIEGO

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; and THE

HONORABLE LANTZ LEWIS, in his

official capacity as Superior Court Judge of

the County of San Diego, 

Defendants.

Before the Court are motions to dismiss by Defendants San Diego County,1

 [Doc. No. 8],

the Honorable Lantz Lewis, San Diego County Superior Court Judge, [Doc. No. 9]. For the reason

below, Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This 42 U.S.C. §1983 case arises out of pro se Plaintiff Brian F. Rogers’s February 2012

small claims action before Judge Lewis concerning repairs to Plaintiff’s car. [See Doc. No. 1.] In

1 Defendant San Diego County is also sued as “San Diego County Sheriff’s Office.” 

[See Doc. No. 1.] 

- 1 - 12cv1684

Case 3:12-cv-01684-IEG-MDD Document 16 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 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

the underlying case, Plaintiff argued for $993 in damages, but Judge Lewis awarded only $200

with an option to take the car back to the small claims defendant for further repair. [Id. at 4-6.] 

San Diego County sheriffs allegedly collected approximately $400 from the small claims

defendant but refused to issue any of those funds to Plaintiff given a balance of offsetting damages

awards against him. [Id. at 9.]

Based on these facts, Plaintiff commenced the present action, alleging that Judge Lewis’s

small claims judgment, and the execution of that judgment by San Diego County sheriffs, reflect

racial bias and thus constitute violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. [See, e.g., id. at 6

(“Plaintiff believes Judge Lantz Lewis is a white racist that should be removed from the bench.”),

8 (“Judge Lantz Lewis has a distrust for African American people which allows him to import

judgments and rulings which have no foundation . . . The Judge simply masquerades the real

reason for his racist behavior through illogical racist conclusions . . .”).] Judge Lewis filed a

motion to dismiss on grounds of judicial immunity from suit. [Doc. No. 9.] San Diego County

filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. [Doc. No. 8.] Plaintiff filed a single

opposition, [Doc. No. 14], and both Defendants filed replies, [Doc. Nos. 10, 12].

DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). Motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) test the sufficiency of this required showing. New Mexico State Investment Council v.

Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). “Dismissal is proper when the

complaint does not make out a cognizable legal theory or does not allege sufficient facts to support

a cognizable legal theory.” Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th

Cir. 2011). Though pro se complaints enjoy “the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), Rule 8 still “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Even affording every benefit of the doubt, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege sufficient

facts to support any cognizable legal theory. No facts are pled as to how Defendants’ conduct

- 2 - 12cv1684

Case 3:12-cv-01684-IEG-MDD Document 16 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 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

could reflect racial bias or otherwise violate Plaintiff’s civil rights. Nor is any harm alleged, let

alone attributed to any conduct by Defendants. Rather, the entirety of Plaintiff’s allegations

amounts to plain dissatisfaction with single ruling by Judge Lewis in Plaintiff’s small claims

action. Therefore, to the extent and for the additional reasons specified below, Defendants’ motion

to dismiss is GRANTED. 

1. Claims Against Judge Lewis

“If an [party] has absolute immunity from [a] § 1983 suit, the trial court must dismiss any

civil rights suit filed against that [party] for actions taken within the scope of his or her official

duty.” Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1297 n.4 (9th Cir. 1981). “Judges are absolutely

immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.”

Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). “The judicial or quasi-judicial

immunity available to federal officers is not limited to immunity from damages, but extends to

actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.” Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240,

1243 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 62 (9th Cir. 1974) (“A

seemingly impregnable fortress in American Jurisprudence is the absolute immunity of judges

from civil liability for acts done by them within their judicial jurisdiction.”). 

Here, Plaintiff’s claims arise entirely from Judge Lewis’s ruling in a small claims action.

[See Doc. No. 1.] Such routine judicial rulings plainly constitute “judicial acts taken within the

jurisdiction of [his] court,” and thus Judge Lewis is absolutely immune to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Schucker, 846 F.2d at 1204. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Lewis are hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2. Claims Against San Diego County

 “[U]nder § 1983, local governments are responsible only for their own illegal acts,” and

thus “are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees’ actions.”2

 Connick v.

Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, “Plaintiffs who seek

to impose liability on local governments under § 1983 must prove that action pursuant to official

2 Unlike Judge Lantz, San Diego County does not enjoy immunity here. See Leatherman

v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993)

(“municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit-either absolute or qualified-under § 1983.”). 

- 3 - 12cv1684

Case 3:12-cv-01684-IEG-MDD Document 16 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 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

municipal policy caused their injury.” Id; see also Los Angeles County, Cal. v. Humphries, 131 S.

Ct. 447, 449 (2010) (“[C]ivil rights plaintiffs suing a municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

must show that their injury was caused by a municipal policy or custom.”). Proof of isolated

events does not suffice. Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1995).

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against San Diego County rest entirely on a single event - San

Diego County’s refusal to issue funds to Plaintiff given a balance of offsetting judgments against

him. [Doc. No. 1 at 9.] And even most liberally construed, the complaint fails to allege any facts

suggesting how this isolated event could reflect a particular policy or practice, much less based on

racial bias. [See id.] As such, Plaintiff fails to state a §1983 claim against San Diego County. 

See Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1359. Still, because amendment is not necessarily futile, Plaintiff’s

§1983 claims against San Diego County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Lewis are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s claims against San Diego County are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint no later than January 28,

2013. To be clear, should Plaintiff file an amended complaint, it may only include claims against

San Diego County and shall not include any claims against Judge Lewis hereby dismissed with

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 2, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv1684

Case 3:12-cv-01684-IEG-MDD Document 16 Filed 01/02/13 Page 4 of 4