Crump v. Kingston

Background

Steven Crump requested permission to serve Joann Kingston and Gloria Rhynes through an alternative method. The opinion states that Kingston was an Alameda County public defender and Rhynes was an Alameda County Superior Court judge. Crump alleged that Rhynes violated his rights by imposing an “unauthorized sentence” and that Kingston violated his right to effective assistance of counsel while representing him in Alameda County Superior Court.

Court’s analysis

The court held that judges have absolute immunity for acts performed in their judicial capacity, even when the acts were allegedly erroneous or beyond the judge’s authority. Because imposing a sentence is a judicial act, the court concluded that Rhynes could not be held liable for that conduct.

The court also held that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing the traditional functions of a defense lawyer in a criminal proceeding. Because Crump’s allegations against Kingston concerned her representation of him, the court concluded that she was not subject to suit under Section 1983, the federal civil-rights statute involved here.

Service ruling

The court denied Crump’s request for alternative service because neither Rhynes nor Kingston was subject to suit under Section 1983. The court separately stated that Crump’s proof of service was inadequate. It explained that the rule for serving people outside California did not apply because the filing showed California addresses for both defendants. It also stated that a certified-mail receipt alone did not satisfy California law, which requires a written acknowledgment of receipt signed by the recipient for service under the cited method.

The court reminded Crump that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, the court must dismiss the case if the defendants are not properly served within 90 days after the complaint was filed. The order did not state that the case was dismissed.