Feng v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Karena A. Feng, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that a psychiatrist involuntarily hospitalized her under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 after the birth of her fourth child. She claimed that the hospitalization and actions by social workers, a state-court judge, and her court-appointed attorney were part of a conspiracy to remove her children for adoption or sex trafficking. She sought at least $650 million in damages.

Feng asserted three types of claims: claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows suits for certain civil-rights violations by people acting under state law; claims under the Fourteenth Amendment; and claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law addressing organized patterns of racketeering activity. The pending motions were filed by Judge Amber Rosen, Dr. Anna Piotrowski, Arthur Gee-Yeh Tan, Amy Yim, and the City and County of San Francisco. The County of Santa Clara, Mayra Alvarez, and Brian Hawkinson had not appeared or moved to dismiss.

Claims Against Judge Rosen

The court held that Feng’s claims against Judge Rosen were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents a federal district court from functioning as an appeal court reviewing state-court judgments. Feng’s claims, as understood by the court, challenged Judge Rosen’s evidentiary decisions in state-court proceedings and sought damages dependent on a finding that those decisions were wrong.

The court also held that absolute judicial immunity protected Judge Rosen from claims based on judicial acts. Feng’s assertion that Judge Rosen lacked jurisdiction did not show that the judge acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Because these problems could not be cured by additional allegations, the court dismissed Feng’s claims against Judge Rosen with prejudice.

Claims Under Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment

The court dismissed Feng’s claims against Dr. Piotrowski and Mr. Tan because she did not allege that either acted under color of state law or was a state actor. The court explained that purely private conduct is not covered by section 1983, and that a Fourteenth Amendment claim also requires state action.

The court dismissed the claims against Ms. Yim because Feng did not allege facts showing that Yim personally participated in removing Feng’s children or otherwise violated her constitutional rights. The court treated Feng’s conspiracy allegations as conclusions unsupported by specific facts. The court also dismissed the constitutional claims against the City and County of San Francisco because Feng did not adequately allege an underlying constitutional violation or a municipal policy or custom that caused one.

RICO Claims

The court dismissed Feng’s RICO claims against Dr. Piotrowski, Mr. Tan, Ms. Yim, and the City and County of San Francisco for failure to state a claim. A civil RICO claim requires, among other things, injury to the plaintiff’s business or property resulting in concrete financial loss. The court found that Feng had not alleged that type of loss; emotional distress and harm to family relationships were not enough for this claim.

Disposition

The court granted the pending motions to dismiss. It dismissed the claims against Judge Rosen with prejudice. It dismissed the claims against Dr. Piotrowski, Mr. Tan, Ms. Yim, and the City and County of San Francisco without prejudice and gave Feng 21 days, until January 16, 2020, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. If she did not amend within that period, the court stated that it would dismiss those claims with prejudice. The order did not resolve the claims against the Santa Clara defendants who had not moved to dismiss.