Sanai v. Kozinski

Background

Cyrus Sanai, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Alex Kozinski, other current and former federal judges and court staff, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, and the Judicial Council of California. His nine causes of action concerned a series of judicial-misconduct proceedings involving Kozinski and, primarily, a 2010 Judicial Council order that publicly reprimanded Sanai, imposed a pre-filing requirement for future misconduct complaints, and referred the order to the State Bar of California.

Sanai alleged that the Judicial Council and individual defendants violated his constitutional rights, misused legal and administrative proceedings, maliciously prosecuted him, and retaliated against him. He also sought a court declaration describing the alleged misconduct and retaliation, various injunctions, relief under the California Public Records Act, a damages remedy under federal law, and punitive damages. The defendants moved to dismiss. Sanai separately sought permission to file a first amended complaint and moved to serve Hunt and Whaley, two remaining defendants.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They argued sovereign immunity, lack of jurisdiction to review Judicial Council decisions, absolute judicial immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, and other grounds.

The court held that sovereign immunity barred the claims against Sidney Thomas in his official capacity, Molly Dwyer, and the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. Sovereign immunity generally protects the federal government and its officials from suit unless Congress has clearly allowed the suit. The court rejected Sanai’s arguments that the Administrative Procedure Act waived that immunity, that the defendants acted outside their authority, or that the 2010 order itself waived immunity. The claims against those defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

The court also held that 28 U.S.C. § 357 barred judicial review of the Judicial Council’s orders and determinations. It applied that bar to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, which challenged the refusal to transfer the 2008 complaint, the public reprimand, and the referral to the State Bar. The court stated that challenges to a Judicial Council order or determination could not proceed in this form, even when framed as constitutional or statutory claims. Those counts were dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

The court further held that absolute judicial immunity protected judges from civil claims based on judicial acts, and that quasi-judicial immunity protected court officials performing functions integral to the judicial process. It concluded that reviewing judicial-misconduct complaints and imposing related disciplinary measures were judicial functions. The court stated that allegations of grave error, malicious conduct, or conspiracy did not remove that immunity. It therefore dismissed the claims against Kozinski, Catterson, Dwyer, Thomas, McKeown, Gould, Rawlinson, Collins, Gonzalez, Hatter, and the non-moving defendants Hunt, Whaley, and Hug as barred by absolute or quasi-judicial immunity.

The court expressly declined to decide the defendants’ alternative arguments about the merits of Sanai’s claims because of the jurisdictional defects and immunities. The opinion also noted, without relying on the issue as the principal basis for dismissal, that the defendants’ arguments that the claims were time-barred appeared persuasive.

Other Dispositions

The Judicial Council of California was the only remaining defendant. Because Sanai asserted only a California Public Records Act claim against it, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim and dismissed it without prejudice.

The court denied Sanai’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. It found the proposed amendments futile because additional allegations about the investigation, alleged misconduct, motion practice, and declaratory-judgment claims would not cure the jurisdictional and immunity defects. The court denied as moot Sanai’s amended administrative motion to serve Hunt and Whaley because their claims had been dismissed with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. The claims against Kozinski, Catterson, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, Dwyer, Thomas, McKeown, Gould, Rawlinson, Collins, Gonzalez, Hatter, Hunt, Whaley, and Hug were dismissed with prejudice. The claim against the Judicial Council of California was dismissed without prejudice. The court denied leave to file a first amended complaint and denied as moot the administrative motion to serve the remaining defendants. The Clerk was directed to close the matter.