Herships v. State of California Superior Court

Background

Howard Herships, representing himself, was booked into the Santa Clara County Jail in January 2020 for a probation violation. He said his hearing aids were taken, leaving him unable to participate in court appearances or communicate with his counsel. He was sentenced to six months in county jail; a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge awarded him 32 days of custody credit but denied an additional 30 days.

Herships sought release through a state-court proceeding. The state court’s appellate division concluded that the trial court had erred in denying the custody credits, but further review requests were denied. Herships was released on March 26, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Claims and motions

Herships filed several amended complaints. His fourth amended complaint asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the federal disability-retaliation statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment. He also sought to enforce a consent decree from a separate case. His allegations included the denial of hearing-related accommodations, delayed diabetes medication, a hand injury during transport, and problems involving appointed counsel.

The Superior Court moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s power to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. Santa Clara County moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Herships’s claims challenging the state court’s denial of additional custody credits. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeal court reviewing a state-court judgment. The court also held that judicial immunity protected the Superior Court from damages claims based on judicial acts, including the denial of custody credits and the appellate division’s appointment of attorney William Safford.

The court allowed the Title II disability claim to proceed against both the Superior Court and the County. Herships alleged that his hearing disability and the courtroom’s nonfunctioning sound system prevented him from communicating with court-appointed counsel. The court also allowed his Rehabilitation Act claim to proceed against both defendants.

The court dismissed the retaliation claim because Herships did not adequately allege protected activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection between them. It dismissed the Section 1983 claims against both defendants. Regarding the County, the court said Herships had not identified a County policy, custom, or practice causing the alleged constitutional violations, as required for municipal liability under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court also dismissed the stand-alone Fourteenth Amendment claim because it essentially repeated his other claims.

The court dismissed the claim seeking to enforce the Chavez consent decree because Herships did not have standing, meaning he was not legally entitled to enforce that decree. The court noted that he had been denied permission to intervene in that case because class counsel adequately represented his interests.

Disposition

The ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims will go forward against the Superior Court and Santa Clara County. The retaliation claims, Section 1983 claims, Fourteenth Amendment claims, and claim to enforce the Chavez consent decree were dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed with prejudice the claims against the state court based on the custody-credit decision and other identified claims challenging judicial acts. Judge Donato concluded that further amendment was not warranted.