Sabir v. Staff

Background

Abdul Rahim Sabir filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by someone acting under state law. The complaint asserted claims against state court judges, public defenders, and unnamed San Francisco County employees.

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A(a), which require preliminary screening of a prisoner’s lawsuit against a governmental entity or government officer or employee. At screening, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.

Claims Against State Judges and Public Defenders

The court dismissed Sabir’s claims against state judges without leave to amend because state judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages based on acts performed in their judicial capacity.

The court also dismissed the claims against public defenders without leave to amend. It explained that public defenders do not act under state law when performing traditional lawyer functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, cross-examining witnesses, and making closing arguments. Acting under state law is an essential element of a § 1983 claim.

Claims Against County Employees

The court dismissed the claims against the unnamed San Francisco County employees with leave to amend. Sabir had not identified the employees or described how their actions allegedly violated his federal constitutional rights. The court directed him to allege specific facts connecting each person to the particular wrong alleged. It explained that liability under § 1983 requires an individualized connection between a defendant’s acts or omissions and the alleged constitutional violation, including participation in the unlawful conduct.

Disposition and Instructions

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file a first amended complaint on or before May 1, 2026. The amended complaint must use the court’s form, include the required caption and the words “COMPLAINT” on the first page, and include all claims and defendants Sabir wishes to pursue. The court stated that an amended complaint completely replaces the earlier complaint and that Sabir may not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference.

The court also warned Sabir that mail had been returned as undeliverable because he had not updated his address to his current address in San Bruno. He was instructed to file a change-of-address notice in each case whenever his address changes. The order states that failure to file a proper amended complaint by May 1, 2026, or failure to update his address, may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.