Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02381/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02381-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen H. Baker
Defendant
Susan Null
Defendant
Debra Lynn Randell
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

In their motion to dismiss, defendants shed some additional light on the factual

1

background. Specifically, they indicate that the underlying matter in the state court was a

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBRA LYNN RANDELL, No. CIV S-07-2381-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STEPHEN H. BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the

court is defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 10). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

I. BACKGROUND

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Susan Null, while acting as Clerk

of the Shasta County Superior Court, notified the California Department of Motor Vehicles that

she had failed to appear in a matter that was under appeal to the appellate division of the Superior

Court. She also alleged that Defendant Stephen Baker, a judge of the Shasta County Superior 1

Case 2:07-cv-02381-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 03/27/08 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 criminal prosecution for driving under the influence. 

2

Court, issued a bench warrant for plaintiff to appear on that same matter under appeal. Plaintiff

states that, on July 31, 2007, she received a notice of cancellation of her drivers license due to a

failure to appear in the appealed matter. The essence of her claim is that, because the matter was

on appeal, the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the bench warrant for failure to appear. 

Plaintiff claims that defendants’ conduct resulted in a “violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to

the Federal Constitution, by exercising ownership of her person.” Plaintiff seeks a total of

$4,000,000.00 in damages. 

II. DISCUSSION

In their motion to dismiss, defendants assert that dismissal is appropriate because: 

(1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because it is an improper appeal of a state court

order; (2) the court should abstain from hearing the case because the underlying criminal

proceeding is ongoing; (3) all defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; and 

(4) defendants Baker and Null are entitled to judicial immunity. 

Turning first to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, federal courts are

prohibited from hearing suits brought against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by

citizens of other states. See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053

(9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition under the Eleventh Amendment extends to suits against states

themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The Eleventh

Amendment also bars actions seeking damages from state officials acting in their official

capacities. See Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9th Cir. 1995); Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d

469, 472 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123

(1908), the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for prospective declaratory or injunctive

Case 2:07-cv-02381-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 03/27/08 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 It is not necessary to address defendants’ remaining arguments. 2

3

relief against state officials in their official capacities. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019,

1025 (9th Cir. 1997). 

In this case, the named defendants are: the State of California, Baker, and Null. 

Baker and Null are both sued in their official capacities as officers of the state – Baker is a judge

of the Superior Court and Null is the Clerk of the Superior Court. Because plaintiff seeks money

damages only, it is clear that all three named defendants are immune from suit under the

Eleventh Amendment. 

Further, judges are absolutely immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken

within the jurisdiction of their courts. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.

1988) (per curiam). This immunity is lost only when the judge acts in the clear absence of all

jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature. See id. Judges retain their immunity

even when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,

11 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978), and when they are

accused of acting in error, see Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999). 

This immunity extends to the actions of court personnel when they act as “an integral part of the

judicial process.” See Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Again, plaintiff claims that defendant Baker is liable because he issued a bench

warrant, which is clearly a judicial function. Similarly, plaintiff alleges defendant Null is liable

for causing that warrant and related notices to be served, which are functions she carried out as

part of the judicial process. Therefore, defendants Baker and Null are also entitled to absolute

judicial immunity. 

For these reasons alone, the entire action should be dismissed with prejudice.2

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-02381-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 03/27/08 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

4

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) be granted; and

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment of dismissal and

close this file.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 27, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02381-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 03/27/08 Page 4 of 4