Wayne Johnson v. Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAYNE JOHNSON, Esquire, No. 22-16290
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-07579-JSC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK
RECORDER; DEBORAH COOPER;
PATRICIA D. MALONE, Court Reporter;
ESA EHMEN KRAUSE, Chief Probation
Officer; COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Wayne Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Glazer Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Forescout Techs., Inc., 63 F.4th 747,
763 (9th Cir. 2023) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6));
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s claims against the Court
Clerk and Court Reporter because both defendants are entitled to quasi-judicial
immunity. See Acres Bonusing, Inc v. Marston, 17 F.4th 901, 916 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“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.”
(citation omitted)); Wright v. Beck, 981 F.3d 719, 738 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining
that “immunity applies when a non-judicial officer performs a non-discretionary or
administrative function at the explicit direction of a judicial officer” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted)).
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s claim against defendants
Ehmen-Krause and Contra Costa County because Johnson failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim and defendant Ehmen-Krause is entitled to
absolute judicial immunity. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (a
court is not required to accept conclusions and speculation in adjudicating a motion
to dismiss); Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020)
2 22-16290
(explaining that Monell claims are contingent on a violation of constitutional
rights); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157 (9th Cir. 1986) (absolute judicial
immunity extends to probation officers preparing reports for the use of state
courts).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s
second amended complaint without further leave to amend because amendment
would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034,
1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal
without leave to amend is proper if amendment would be futile); Fid. Fin. Corp. v.
Fed. Home Loan Bank of S.F., 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The district
court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where the court has
already given the plaintiff an opportunity to amend [the] complaint.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 22-16290