Oster v. State of California

Background

Brent Oster brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous state and county defendants. His claims concerned alleged constitutional violations arising largely from his divorce proceedings, including a domestic-violence restraining order, his prosecution for violating that order, and financial consequences such as the forced sale of his house. Oster asserted claims involving alleged constitutional violations, inadequate screening, training, and supervision, and an allegedly unconstitutional government policy. He also filed the complaint on behalf of Kathia Oster/Portuguez, whom he identified as an involuntary plaintiff.

The motions addressed claims against the State of California, the Commission on Judicial Performance, and the County of Santa Clara. The court noted that, apart from the State and County, there was no proof that the other defendants had been served. It therefore stated that the order did not affect those other defendants and separately issued an order to show cause concerning service of process.

County claims

The County argued that Oster had not adequately pleaded municipal liability under Monell. A Monell claim requires facts showing that a government entity’s policy or custom caused a constitutional violation and that the policy amounted to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right. Oster alleged that the County had an unconstitutional policy and failed to properly screen, train, and supervise its employees, but the court found those allegations to be general statements without enough facts describing the policy or the training failures. The court also found that Oster had not provided facts showing that an alleged policy concerning crimes during divorce proceedings existed or that the County was responsible for creating it.

The court held that Oster had not sufficiently pleaded liability under Monell and dismissed his claims against the County with leave to amend. The court stated that an amended complaint would also need facts supporting an underlying constitutional violation. It highlighted the County’s argument that, unless the pending criminal charges against Oster were acquitted or dismissed, the rule in Heck v. Humphrey could bar his claims against the County defendants. The opinion did not finally decide that issue.

State claims

The State argued that claims against California and the Commission on Judicial Performance were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. That immunity generally prevents suits against a state or its agencies unless the state consents or Congress validly removes the immunity. Because Oster brought his claims under § 1983, and California had not waived its immunity for such claims, the court held that the claims against the State of California were barred.

The court likewise held that the Commission on Judicial Performance, described as a state agency, was protected by the Eleventh Amendment. It dismissed the claims against the State of California and the Commission on Judicial Performance without leave to amend.

Kathia Oster/Portuguez and further proceedings

The court stated that it was not aware of authority allowing Oster to involuntarily represent his ex-wife in this action. If Oster wanted to join Kathia Oster/Portuguez as an involuntary plaintiff, he had to seek joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). The court also stated that, because Oster was not an attorney, he could not represent her.

The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend in part and ordered Oster to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by May 24, 2021. It prohibited him from adding parties or claims without the court’s permission.