Bey v. Gascon

Background

Jamil Bey, representing himself, filed a pleading titled “Claim for Damages & Injunctive Relief,” which the court treated as a complaint. He named three state court judges, two state court clerks, the San Francisco District Attorney, the San Francisco Sheriff, twenty unidentified sheriff’s deputies, and two private individuals.

Bey’s claims arose primarily from a dispute over property in a storage unit owned by his associate, Marimar Cornejo. Public Storage sued Cornejo in small claims court over unpaid rent and fees and sought authority to sell property in the unit. Bey attempted to participate in that case, although the small claims court did not initially recognize him as a party. The court later entered judgment against Cornejo, and Public Storage sold property from the unit before the deadline stated in an appellate order. Bey appeared to claim that some of the property sold belonged to him.

Bey also alleged that deputies seized a recording device during a small claims proceeding, arrested him after two people reported that he had threatened them, and deprived him of food while seeking a DNA sample. The San Francisco District Attorney filed criminal charges against Bey for two counts of criminal threats and one count involving refusal or failure to provide a specimen. Those charges were later dismissed without prejudice.

Bey asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims against state actors for constitutional violations, along with state-law and international-law claims. He sought damages and an injunction preventing California from exercising judicial and executive authority over him or bringing new charges based on the same events. The court granted his application to proceed without paying filing fees and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Rulings on Immunity and the Pleading

The court dismissed the claims against Judges Charlene Padovani Kiesselbach, Branden Woods, and Teresa M. Caffese because judicial immunity generally protects state judges from damages for acts performed in their judicial roles. The court found that the challenged conduct—controlling courtroom proceedings, appointing a public defender, and conducting a preliminary hearing—was judicial conduct and was not performed in the complete absence of jurisdiction. The court rejected Bey’s argument that his asserted “Moorish-American” status deprived the state courts of jurisdiction. These claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The court also dismissed the claims against state court clerks Melinka Jones and Frances Yokota with prejudice. It held that court clerks have quasi-judicial immunity from damages for tasks integral to the judicial process and found that the alleged refusal to accept documents and denial of access to court records fell within that protection.

The claims against District Attorney George Gascon were dismissed with prejudice. The court held that filing a felony complaint was conduct protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity because it was part of pursuing a criminal prosecution as the state’s advocate.

The court dismissed the claims against Sheriff Vicki L. Hennessey without leave to amend because Bey did not allege facts showing her personal involvement in the alleged misconduct by deputies. The court explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because a subordinate allegedly violated someone’s rights.

As to the unidentified deputies, the court rejected claims concerning the recording device because the deputies acted pursuant to a judge’s order and California court rules required advance permission to use a recording device in court. The court additionally held that qualified immunity—protection for government officials unless they violated a clearly established legal right—would apply even if the seizure lacked probable cause.

The court also concluded that Bey had not adequately alleged that the deputies lacked probable cause to arrest him for criminal threats. The reports from the two alleged victims provided information supporting the arrest. The court stated that qualified immunity would independently bar the claims because the deputies reasonably could have concluded that probable cause existed. The court found Bey’s Eighth Amendment allegations concerning food and the DNA sample insufficient to state a § 1983 claim.

State, International-Law, and Injunctive Claims

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bey’s state-law claims against the two private individuals for fraud, malicious abuse of process, libel, and slander because the federal claims were being dismissed.

The court held that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was not self-executing and therefore did not provide an enforceable legal claim or remedy in this case.

The court treated Bey’s later filing as withdrawing his request for a temporary restraining order and seeking a preliminary injunction instead. It held that he could not obtain an injunction against all future prosecutions based on his theory that California lacked jurisdiction over him. The court concluded that he had not stated a claim warranting injunctive relief.

Disposition

Judge William Orrick granted Bey’s request to proceed without paying filing fees. The court dismissed all claims against all defendants without leave to amend, denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot, and denied Bey’s request for permission to file electronically as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered.