Herndon v. Marin County Conservatorship
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-00649
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Herndon v. Marin County Conservatorship, Judge Breyer dismissed the § 1983 challenge for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Gerrod Herndon, whose § 1983 challenge to the state-court conservatorship was dismissed; the Marin County Conservatorship was the named defendant.
What happened
In Herndon v. Marin County Conservatorship, Gerrod Herndon, a former state prisoner living at an assisted-living facility, challenged a Marin County Superior Court conservatorship under which he was committed there. He represented himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court granted his request to proceed without paying fees based solely on his poverty affidavit. But it dismissed his civil-rights lawsuit because lower federal courts cannot review state-court decisions. The court said a possible federal challenge would instead require a habeas petition after state remedies were exhausted.
Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered the clerk to close the case and terminate all pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Herndon v. Marin County Conservatorship · No. 3:21-cv-00649
- Charles Breyer
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Gerrod Herndon, identified in the opinion as a former state prisoner currently living at Ruby’s Valley Care Home, an assisted-living facility in Fresno, California, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He challenged the conservatorship imposed through the Marin County Superior Court, pursuant to which he was committed to the care home. Herndon represented himself and also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Ruling
The court granted Herndon’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee based solely on his affidavit of poverty. It dismissed his § 1983 action because federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review state-court decisions. The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a rule that prevents lower federal courts from acting as appeals courts for state-court judgments.
The court stated that a possible federal challenge to the conservatorship would be a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but only after state judicial remedies had been exhausted. The opinion did not decide whether such a petition would succeed. Judge Charles R. Breyer directed the clerk to close the case and terminate all pending motions as moot.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.