Declue v. Family Law Services

Background

Alan Declue sued the County of Alameda, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Nancy O’Malley, the City of Livermore, Michael Harris, Paul Giacometti, the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Jason Clay, Valerie DeClue, Family Law Services, Inc., Terra Firma Diversion Services, and Bertha Cuellar. He alleged that these defendants conspired against him in state-court proceedings involving custody of his and Valerie’s minor daughter, D.D.

The complaint asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including due process, seizure, privacy, familial-association, coercive-procedure, judicial-deception, and municipal-policy claims. It also asserted California claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, negligence, and breach of statutory duties. Alan also moved for a preliminary injunction seeking, among other relief, to set aside or stop enforcement of the domestic-violence restraining order and to obtain custody of D.D.

Federal Claims Against the Alameda County Defendants

The court held that the federal claims against the Alameda County Defendants were barred by prosecutorial immunity, sovereign immunity, and failure to state a claim. Prosecutorial immunity is protection from liability for prosecutorial acts closely connected to the criminal court process. The court found that the only specific, non-conclusory allegation against these defendants concerned the decision to release Valerie and not pursue criminal charges against her. The court held that this decision was protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity and that amendment could not make it actionable.

The court separately held that sovereign immunity barred the federal claims. It adopted the conclusion that, when a district attorney’s office handles state criminal prosecutions, it represents the state rather than the county. The court also concluded that Alan had not pleaded sufficient facts showing an underlying constitutional violation. Among other reasons, he had not established a constitutional right to retain custody under the circumstances described, had not shown that these defendants violated such a right, and had supplied only conclusory allegations of an unlawful county policy.

The court therefore granted the Alameda County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims against them with prejudice.

Federal Claims Against the Livermore Defendants

The court held that the federal claims against the Livermore Defendants were barred by the statute of limitations. The court applied California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions and concluded that Alan knew or had reason to know of the claimed injury when D.D. was separated from him after the restraining order was issued on January 30, 2017. Because he filed this action more than three and a half years later, the claims were untimely.

The court rejected Alan’s argument that continuing contact by Livermore police officers extended the limitations period. It noted that the complaint did not allege that contact and that Alan’s description of it as harassment was conclusory. The court also independently found that the claims rested on conclusory or implausible allegations: Alan did not connect the Livermore Defendants to the state-court proceedings, did not allege that they controlled the prosecutor’s decision not to bring charges, did not allege their participation in presenting allegedly false evidence, and did not adequately identify a Livermore policy causing a constitutional violation.

The court therefore granted the Livermore Defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims against them with prejudice.

Claims Against the Superior Court and Judge Clay

The court dismissed all claims against the Alameda County Superior Court and Judge Clay with prejudice. It held that judicial immunity protected Judge Clay from claims based on acts performed in the judicial process, including issuing and extending the domestic-violence restraining order, considering evidence, making decisions in the state-court proceedings, meeting with counsel in chambers, and allegedly acting with bias.

The court also held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine independently barred claims seeking to undo or set aside a state-court judgment. Because Alan asked the federal court to set aside or enjoin the restraining order and challenged the process used in the state case, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. The dismissal did not prevent Alan from pursuing any available review in the state-court system.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claims against the Alameda County and Livermore Defendants, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction permits a federal court hearing federal claims to hear related state claims in the same dispute. The court dismissed all remaining state-law claims against those defendants without prejudice. The order stated that Alan could refile those claims in state court, but not in this federal court.

D.D.’s Participation

The court dismissed D.D. from the action without prejudice. Under the applicable rules, a minor must proceed through a guardian or guardian ad litem, and a parent may not represent a minor in court without retaining a lawyer. Alan identified himself as self-represented, had not been appointed guardian ad litem, and had not asked for such an appointment. The dismissal was without prejudice to any claims D.D. might have against any defendant, including claims concerning alleged sexual abuse while in Valerie’s custody.

Preliminary Injunction

The court denied Alan’s motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety. A preliminary injunction is extraordinary temporary relief that requires a clear showing of likely success or serious merits questions, likely irreparable harm, favorable balancing of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.

The court concluded that Alan could not show a likelihood of success against the Alameda County Defendants or Livermore Defendants because he could not state viable claims against them in this court. Judicial immunity and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine likewise prevented likely success against the Superior Court and Judge Clay. As to the private defendants, the court found that Alan had not identified independent acts by them or alleged state action sufficient to support a § 1983 claim.

The court also found that Alan had not established the remaining injunction factors. His loss of custody had occurred more than three years earlier, which undermined his claim of immediate irreparable harm. The court further found that his assertion that D.D. had been sexually assaulted by an unspecified therapist was conclusory and unsupported by evidence. Judge Hamilton therefore denied the preliminary-injunction motion.