Simmons v. Koh

Background

Melvin Joseph Simmons, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh. The complaint concerned an earlier case Simmons had filed against California Correctional Health Care Services. That earlier case was assigned to Judge Koh.

The clerk notified Simmons that he had to pay the filing fee or request permission to proceed without prepaying it by January 18, 2021. A check from Simmons was received by the district court on February 2, but the docket did not initially reflect it. On February 22, Judge Koh dismissed the earlier case without prejudice because the docket showed no response to the clerk’s notice. Simmons later objected and provided an account statement, but the statement did not identify the court or case for which the payment had been sent. On April 21, the clerk found the check, corrected the docket, and applied the payment to the earlier case. Judge Koh then reopened that case and screened the complaint, dismissing it with leave to amend and providing instructions for stating a claim.

Simmons filed this action alleging that Judge Koh had tried to embezzle his check and had dismissed the earlier case because of bias. He sought Judge Koh’s recusal from future matters involving him, damages, protection against future dismissal of the earlier case, and release from prison. The action was initially assigned to Judge Koh under a district-wide assignment rule. She recused herself, and the matter was reassigned to the court that issued this order.

Court’s analysis

Because Simmons was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also considered records from the earlier case that were appropriate for judicial notice, meaning records the court could consider without treating them as disputed allegations.

As to the embezzlement claim, the court found that the earlier case’s docket showed Simmons’s payment had been applied to that case’s filing fee. The check had been received and processed by a cashier in the clerk’s office, and Judge Koh was not a cashier and had not received the check. The court acknowledged the delay in applying the payment but concluded that the delay could not be attributed to embezzlement by Judge Koh.

As to the bias claim, the court held that Judge Koh was absolutely immune from civil liability for actions taken in her judicial capacity. The court stated that this protection covered not only damages but also declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. The court also independently found no evidence of bias in the record. It reasoned that Judge Koh had waited beyond the original deadline before dismissing the earlier case and had dismissed it without prejudice, allowing Simmons to file a new action. Those were routine case-management decisions that happened to be unfavorable to Simmons, and an unfavorable ruling alone did not establish bias.

Disposition

The court concluded that both claims were incurably defective. Amending the embezzlement claim would be futile because Simmons could not truthfully allege that Judge Koh received the check, and amending the bias claim would be futile because of absolute judicial immunity. The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, without leave to amend, and directed the clerk to close the file.