Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04192/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04192-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

JAN VAN DUSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04192-EDL 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST 

IMMUNE DEFENDANTS AND 

REASSIGNING CASE

On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff Jan Van Dusen filed a complaint against the County of 

Alameda, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Director of ACCESS Program at 

the Alameda County Behavioral Health John Stenson, and President of the Board of Supervisors 

of Alameda County Scott Haggerty, as well as several dozen judges and commissioners of 

Alameda County Superior Court. Because none of the parties have yet consented to this Court’s 

jurisdiction, the Court issues this report and recommendation and reassigns this case to a district 

judge. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the IFP Application and recommends 

dismissing the claims against the President of the Board of Supervisors and Alameda County 

Superior Court judges and commissioners. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a 

person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” The 

court may dismiss claims sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma 

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action or that the action fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Dismissal on these grounds is often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare 

Case 3:16-cv-04192-MMC Document 6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

Plaintiff’s IFP Application adequately alleges her poverty. Her total monthly income is 

$2,823.94 ($790.94 in net income from her employment at Home Depot, $1433 in social security, 

and $600 in rent). She owns a $400,000 home and an unfinanced car. The monthly expenses 

listed in her application total $2,276.37 ($1316.37 in mortgage payments, $410 in utilities, $500 

for food, $25 for clothing, and $25 for her credit card bill). An “Income and Expense Declaration” 

attached to the application states that she also pays $26/month to the Franchise Tax Board in court 

fees and back taxes, $50/month to the IRS in back taxes, $86/month to Earth Circles Counseling 

for court-ordered counseling, and $10/month to Central Collections for Restitution, which brings 

her total monthly expenses to $2,448.37. Accordingly, the difference between her monthly 

income and monthly expenses is $375.57.

Plaintiff’s claims against the County of Alameda, District Attorney, and Director of the 

ACCESS Program comply with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 because Plaintiff adequately pleads that 

these Defendants were responsible for implementing California Penal Code Section 597(h), and 

they are not immune to suit for injunctive relief. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 710 (1999); 

Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 58 (1989); Roe v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 

109 F.3d 578, 586 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk issue summons as to 

these Defendants, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal for the Northern 

District of California serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, any 

amendments, scheduling orders, attachments, plaintiff’s affidavit and this order upon these 

Defendants.

However, Plaintiff’s claims against the President of the Board of Supervisors and Superior 

Court judges and commissioners do not comply with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 because they fail to 

state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The former claims are barred by legislative 

immunity. See Schmidt v. Contra Costa Cnty., 693 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012); Therriault v. 

Mikkelsen, 145 F.3d 1341 (9th Cir. 1998). The latter are barred by judicial immunity. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1983; Moore v. Fruin, No. CV 12-03140-ODW (OP), 2013 WL 1859043, at *5 (C.D. 

Case 3:16-cv-04192-MMC Document 6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Cal. Mar. 29, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 1858752 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 

2013), aff’d, 601 F. App’x 563 (9th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, the Court recommends that these claims be dismissed with prejudice. Any 

party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil 

Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 

the District Court's order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/15/2016

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04192-MMC Document 6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 3