Yamburg v. State of California ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEONID YAMBURG, EGD735, Case No. 24-cv-04593-CRB (PR) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. (ECF No. 8) 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Santa Clara County Jail, has filed a pro se complaint for 13 damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various wrongdoing by the presiding judge and court- 14 appointed public defenders in connection with the ongoing state criminal proceedings against him 15 for the murder of his wife and daughter. Among other things, plaintiff alleges that Santa Clara 16 County Superior Court Judge Kelly Paul violated his “constitutional presumption of innocence” in 17 her opening remarks and that assistant public defenders Matthew Wilson and William Weigel 18 violated his constitutional rights “for [effective] assistance of coun[se]l” and “for self[- 19 ]representation” on multiple occasions. ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 10, 11. Plaintiff also alleges that 20 unnamed employees at the Santa Clara County Jail and Napa State Hospital violated his 21 constitutional rights in connection with the conditions of his confinement at those institutions. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and “appointment of pro bono 22 counsel.” ECF No. 8 (Mot.) at 1. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 27 1 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 2 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 3 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 4 Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 6 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 7 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 8 42, 48 (1988). 9 B. Legal Claims 10 It is well established that a state judge generally is “immune from suit for money 11 damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991). This immunity is overcome in only two sets of 12 circumstances. Id. at 11. “First, a judge is not immune from liability from nonjudicial actions, 13 i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, 14 though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 11-12 (citations 15 omitted). “[W]hether an act by a judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate[s] to the nature of the act itself, 16 i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, 17 i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Spakman, 435 U.S. 349, 18 362 (1978). A “complete absence of all jurisdiction” means a clear lack of subject matter 19 jurisdiction. Miller v. Davis, 521 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2008). 20 Plaintiff alleges that Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kelly Paul violated his 21 constitutional rights by declaring him a “murderer” in her opening remarks, ECF No. 1 at 8, and in 22 connection with various court rulings with which he disagrees, see id. at 7-9. None of the alleged 23 actions by Judge Paul in connection with plaintiff’s ongoing state criminal proceedings involve 24 nonjudicial actions or judicial actions taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See 25 Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12. Judge Paul consequently is “immune from suit for money damages.” 26 Id. at 9. See also Munoz v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 27 2024) (“state court judges cannot be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the 1 Plaintiff’s allegations that assistant public defenders Matthew Wilson and William Weigel 2 violated his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and to self-representation in 3 connection with their handling of his defense in the ongoing state criminal proceedings against 4 him fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is well established that a public 5 defender does not act under color of state law, an essential element of an action under § 1983, 6 when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, 7 objecting at trial, cross-examining witnesses, and making closing arguments. See Polk County v. 8 Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981). It matters not that the public defender failed to exercise 9 independent judgment or that he was employed by a public agency; it is the nature and context of 10 the function performed by the public defender that is determinative under Polk County. Miranda 11 v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).1 12 Plaintiff’s allegations that unnamed employees at the Santa Clara County Jail and Napa 13 State Hospital violated his constitutional rights in connection with the conditions of his 14 confinement at those institutions will be dismissed without prejudice to bringing in a separate suit 15 because it is well established that “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in 16 different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 17 B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 18 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED for lack of 19 exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn 20 v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 21 CONCLUSION 22 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend under the 23 authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Plaintiff’s allegations against the named defendants – Judge 24 Paul, assistant public defenders Wilson and Weigel, the State of California and the County of 25 1 Plaintiff also names as defendants the State of California and the County of Santa Clara 26 on the apparent theory that the state is responsible for the actions/omissions of state judges and that the county is responsible for the actions/omissions of public defenders. But it is well 27 established that the state is immune from damages under the Eleventh Amendment and that the ] Santa Clara — are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and/or for 2 || seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, and plaintiff's 3 allegations against the unnamed employees at the Santa Clara County Jail and Napa State Hospital 4 || are dismissed without prejudice to bringing in a separate suit. 5 The clerk is instructed to terminate the motion appearing on ECF as item number 8. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: November 25, 2024 8 2a CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28