Womack v. Newsome

Background

Rodney Womack, who was in custody at the California State Prison in Corcoran, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer.

The lawsuit arose from rulings in an earlier case in which Womack had filed a petition challenging his custody. The earlier petition was dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition, and courts denied requests for a certificate allowing an appeal, a stay, release, and reconsideration. Womack alleged that Judges Freeman, Tallman, Nguyen, Farris, and Murguia refused to hold a due-process counsel hearing connected to two prior robbery convictions because of racial bias. He also alleged that the governor should be held liable because he was responsible for the judges.

Claims Against the Federal Judges

The court explained that a claim for damages against federal officials for constitutional violations would have to proceed under the limited remedy recognized in Bivens, if such a claim was available at all. The court did not decide whether Bivens provided a remedy for the alleged wrongs because the claims had a separate fatal defect.

The court held that the alleged actions by the five federal judges were taken in their judicial capacities. Federal judges have absolute judicial immunity for actions performed in that capacity. The immunity applies not only to damages but also to declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. The claims against the five judges were therefore barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Claim Against the Governor

The court explained that a claim against the governor would arise under § 1983 because the governor acts under state law, rather than under Bivens. A § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

The court rejected Womack’s theory that the governor was responsible for the five federal judges. It stated that the Governor of California does not control federal judicial decision-making and played no role in the adjudication of Womack’s federal petition. The court concluded that Womack had not stated a claim against the governor defendant.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston dismissed the action because five defendants had absolute immunity from the claims alleged and the complaint failed to state a claim against the sixth defendant. The court did not grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment, and it directed the clerk to close the file.