Heineman v. Alsup

Background

Dale Scott Heineman, representing himself, filed a complaint asserting 87 causes of action against William H. Alsup, Merrick Garland, Ismail Ramsey, James E. Keller, David Hall, and Nikhil Bhagat. The opinion refers to these defendants collectively as the Federal Defendants. Heineman’s claims arose from his prior criminal case and related proceedings before Judge Alsup. The complaint challenged, among other things, the court’s jurisdiction, grand-jury proceedings, evidence, sentencing-related matters, and statements made during a hearing. Heineman also asserted that his criminal conviction and other orders should be voided.

The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. Heineman also filed two motions to stay the case.

Judicial Immunity

The court held that Judge Alsup was protected by judicial immunity. This protection generally bars civil claims based on a judge’s judicial acts, including claims seeking damages or equitable relief. The court found that Judge Alsup acted within his judicial capacity during Heineman’s criminal proceedings and had personal jurisdiction over Heineman throughout the criminal case and later hearings.

The court rejected Heineman’s arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction because of his “sovereign citizen” theories. It stated that such arguments have been rejected as frivolous and that a federal court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant is brought before it on a federal indictment charging a federal-law violation. The court dismissed Heineman’s claims against Judge Alsup with prejudice.

Prosecutorial Immunity

The court also held that the claims against the Attorney General, the United States Attorney, and the Assistant United States Attorneys were barred by prosecutorial immunity. The claims concerned how the prosecutors conducted grand-jury proceedings, including allegations about evidence, victims presented to the grand jury, and a victim-impact statement. The court concluded that these activities fell within the scope of prosecutorial immunity and dismissed the claims against the Federal Defendants with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court denied Heineman’s motions to stay as moot. It ordered that judgment be entered in accordance with the order.