Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01639-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanislaus County Family Court Services
Defendant
Stanislaus County Superior Court
Defendant
Christopher M. Stone
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER M. STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14 -cv-01639---SAB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher M. Stone, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 20, 2014. Currently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s complaint against Stanislaus County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Family 

Court Services. (ECF No. 1.) 

I.

SCREENING

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court 

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In 

determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard 

used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 1:14-cv-01639-TLN-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 6
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

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 

of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . 

. . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as 

true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal 

conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

II.

DISCUSSION

“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state 

[and] its agencies . . .” Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007), 

“regardless of the relief sought, unless the state unequivocally consents to a waiver of its 

immunity,” Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Washington, 176 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1999); 

see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996). The Superior Court and 

Family Court Services are agencies of the state and as such are entitled to Eleventh Amendment 

immunity. Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Zoe v. Family Court Services of Alameda County, No. C 96-2588 CW, 1998 WL 

292036, *8 (N.D. Cal. March 26, 1998).

Plaintiff may not bring a claim under section 1983 against Stanislaus County Superior 

Court and Stanislaus County Family Court Services in this action. Plaintiff shall be granted an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies in his pleading. In the 

following paragraphs, the Court shall provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to 

apply to the claims raised in his complaint. 

A. Linkage Requirement

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional or 

Case 1:14-cv-01639-TLN-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/19/14 Page 2 of 6
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

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). In this instance there are several legal 

principals relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 

While “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against 

a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities,” Aholelei v. Dept. of 

Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007), it does not bar suits seeking damages from 

public officials acting in their personal capacities, Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991). 

However, government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under 

a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 550 U.S. at 677. To state a claim under section 1983, 

Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his 

rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th 

Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 

934. In other words, to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each 

named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 

Plaintiff’s federal rights.

B. Judicial Immunity

Judges are immune from liability under § 1983 when they are functioning in their official 

capacities. Imbler v. Pactman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 

363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986). 

Judicial immunity applies “however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in 

its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 

(1985). Nor is this immunity affected by the motives by which the judge performs his judicial 

acts. Cleavinger, 474 U.S. at 200. A judge is absolutely immune from damage liability as long 

as he performed a judicial act and did not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction.” Stump v. 

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 (1978).

Judicial immunity is also afforded to “certain individuals who perform functions closely 

associated with the judicial process.” Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:14-cv-01639-TLN-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/19/14 Page 3 of 6
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

2001) (quoting Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Court clerks have 

absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform 

tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis v. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of 

Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). As long as the clerk acts within his general 

subject matter jurisdiction, he is entitled to absolute immunity from damages. Mullis, 828 F.2d 

at 1390. 

Finally, individuals who perform functions that are an integral part of the judicial process 

are immune from liability. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 (1983) (witnesses testifying 

during judicial proceedings); Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1303 (1981) (parole board 

officials in considering parole applications); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1970 

(probation officers and court-appointed psychiatrists in preparing and submitting reports to the 

court); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir. 1985) (probation officer in investigating 

and preparing presentencing report for court); Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dept. of Social 

Services, 812 F.2d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 1987) (child services workers in initiating and pursuing

dependency proceedings); Todd v. Landrum, No. 2:12-cv-01770 LKK KJN PS, 2012 WL 

5187836, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (court appointed mediator). 

Plaintiff is advised that he cannot state a claim based upon the actions of the judicial 

officials or those appointed by the court to assist in his case for acting within the scope of their 

jurisdiction. 

C. Fourteenth Amendment Claim

Plaintiff contends that the actions alleged in the complaint violate his liberty interest in 

parenting by denying him Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment. “It is well established 

that a parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the companionship and society of his or her 

child and that the state's interference with that liberty interest without due process of law is 

remediable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 685 (2001). 

Due process requires the observance of procedural protections before the state may interfere with 

the family relationship. Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 2007). 

However, the interest in maintaining the family relationship is not absolute and the interest of the 

Case 1:14-cv-01639-TLN-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/19/14 Page 4 of 6
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

5

parent must be balanced against the interests of the state and, when conflicting, the interests of 

the children. Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okl., 866 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1989). 

While it is unclear from the complaint, it appears that this action is based upon a child 

custody dispute in which Plaintiff received a two day trial on August 13 and 14, 2013. 

Following the trial, the judge determined that Plaintiff had a mental problem that made him 

unsafe to care for his daughter. (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s due process claims appear 

to stem from recommendations to the court by persons appointed to assist the court and decisions 

made by the court during the pendency of the proceedings for which the actors are entitled to 

judicial immunity. 

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is very liberal and leave to amend 

“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, 

Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Accordingly, Plaintiff 

shall be granted an opportunity to amend his complaint.

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a violation of his 

constitutional rights under section 1983. Plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity to file an 

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 

unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) 

(no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948-49. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and 

focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are 

alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Case 1:14-cv-01639-TLN-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/19/14 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana,

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local 

Rule 220. 

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed October 20, 2014, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01639-TLN-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/19/14 Page 6 of 6