Schoborg v. Contra Costa Superior Court
- Lisa Cisneros
- 3:25-cv-10539
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Todd M. Schoborg v. Contra Costa Superior Court, the court denied late objections, adopted the dismissal recommendation, and closed the case.
Todd M. Schoborg’s Section 1983 case was closed after the court denied permission to file late objections and adopted the recommendation to dismiss his claims as barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Contra Costa Superior Court was the defendant.
What happened
Todd M. Schoborg sued the Contra Costa Superior Court under a federal civil-rights law, claiming that arrests, hearings, and court orders from 2000 to 2003 violated his constitutional rights. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because the claims were filed too late under a two-year deadline.
Schoborg asked to file objections after the deadline, citing medical emergencies and the continuing effects of the alleged violations. The court denied that request, noting that the emergencies occurred before the recommendation and before he filed his amended complaint. The Ninth Circuit had also dismissed his earlier appeal because the recommendation was not a final, appealable decision.
The court independently reviewed and fully adopted the recommendation, terminated all pending motions, and closed the case. The opinion does not clearly identify the presiding judge because the signature text is corrupted; the order refers to the deciding authority as the court.
The detailed version
- Schoborg v. Contra Costa Superior Court · No. 3:25-cv-10539
- Lisa J. Cisneros
- Sept. 22, 2026
Background
Todd M. Schoborg brought an action under Section 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state actors, against Contra Costa Superior Court. He alleged that arrests, hearings, and court orders occurring between 2000 and 2003 violated his constitutional rights.
In June 2026, Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros recommended dismissing the first amended complaint because all of Schoborg’s claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Schoborg appealed the recommendation directly to the Ninth Circuit in July 2026. In August 2026, the Ninth Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that a report and recommendation is not a final, appealable decision.
Late objections
Schoborg asked for permission to file objections after the two-week deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 had passed. He argued that medical emergencies and the continuing effects of the alleged constitutional violations constituted excusable neglect, meaning a legally sufficient reason for missing the deadline.
The court denied the request. It explained that Schoborg’s medical emergencies occurred before Judge Cisneros issued the report and recommendation and before Schoborg filed his amended complaint. The court also noted that he filed his Ninth Circuit appeal less than two weeks after the objection deadline.
Ruling and disposition
The court independently reviewed Judge Cisneros’s report and recommendation and agreed with it. The court adopted the recommendation in full. All pending motions were terminated, and the case was closed.
The deciding judge’s name is unclear in the provided signature because the text appears as “JAMES/PONATO.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.