DeBert v. Mendes

Background

Self-represented plaintiff Charlene DeBert filed a civil lawsuit against defendants Marcus Mendes, Gary Redenbacher, Judge Timothy Schmal, and the County of Santa Cruz, stemming from two citations issued against her by the County. After the court conducted an initial screening and found her original complaint insufficient, DeBert filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) and added a new defendant, Ryan Thompson.

Legal Standard for Screening

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 — the federal statute governing cases where a plaintiff has been allowed to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee — courts are required to screen complaints and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Courts must also identify any viable ("cognizable") claims. At the same time, pleadings filed by self-represented (pro se) litigants must be read generously and construed liberally.

Identified Deficiencies

1. Unclear Claims Against Ryan Thompson DeBert appears to have added Ryan Thompson as a defendant in the FAC, but the body of the complaint lists only Mendes, Redenbacher, Schmal, and the County as defendants for Claims One through Six. It is not clear which cause of action Thompson is alleged to be responsible for, creating a deficiency the court requires DeBert to clarify.

2. Absolute Quasi-Judicial Immunity for Redenbacher DeBert alleged a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Redenbacher in connection with his role as a hearing officer for the Santa Cruz County Planning Department — specifically, for denying her request for a continuance and proceeding with a hearing despite what she characterized as inadequate preparation time. The court held that Redenbacher has absolute quasi-judicial immunity (immunity from lawsuits for money damages that extends to persons performing adjudicatory functions in administrative agencies, such as hearing officers), citing Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978), and related authority. The court found that the claim against Redenbacher cannot proceed on this ground.

3. Absolute Judicial Immunity for Schmal Judges are absolutely immune from suits for money damages for acts performed in their official judicial capacity. DeBert argued in her FAC that Judge Schmal's acts of instructing court clerks to reject her filings were administrative rather than judicial acts. The court rejected that characterization, explaining that Ninth Circuit precedent treats a judge's direction to clerks regarding the filing process as part of the judicial process — and therefore covered by absolute judicial immunity. The court held that Schmal has absolute immunity for those acts.

4. Exhibits Cannot Substitute for Factual Allegations DeBert attached five exhibits to her FAC. The court noted that while plaintiffs may attach exhibits to supplement their allegations, exhibits cannot take the place of well-pleaded factual allegations that must appear in the body of the complaint. Attaching exhibits in lieu of pleading facts in the complaint itself will not cure the existing deficiencies.

Disposition

The court granted DeBert leave to amend her complaint. She may file a second amended complaint by September 22, 2026, addressing the identified deficiencies. She may not add new parties or claims without advance permission from the court. The court warned that if the deficiencies are not cured, it may recommend dismissal of the case.

The court also directed DeBert's attention to the court's Pro Se Program, which provides free legal advice and attorney referrals to self-represented litigants.