Nordin v. Scott

Background

Jason Nicholas Nordin, proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The claims arose from divorce, child-custody, and domestic-violence proceedings in the family-law department of the Santa Clara Superior Court. Nordin named the Superior Court judge handling those proceedings, his ex-wife, her lawyer and boyfriend, and an attorney appointed to represent his minor children. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Financial eligibility

The court denied the fee-waiver application. Although Nordin was unemployed, the court found that he received significant monthly Veterans Affairs disability benefits that exceeded his monthly expenses. The court also noted that he owned a home and a car, and concluded that he did not financially qualify for this status.

Complaint screening and jurisdiction

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may dismiss a complaint filed by a person seeking this fee waiver if it fails to state a claim for relief. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), while giving Nordin’s self-represented complaint a liberal reading.

The court concluded that the § 1983 and § 1985 claims were based entirely on family and domestic disputes being litigated in state court. It held that the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction barred Nordin from litigating those issues in federal court. This exception limits federal courts’ authority over matters such as divorce and child custody.

The court also explained that, if Nordin filed an amended complaint, the § 1983 and § 1985 claims could not proceed against Torrey, Whitfield, Iverson, and Bisted because the complaint treated them as private actors. The court stated that private actors generally cannot be sued under § 1983 absent joint action with the state. It further stated that a court-appointed attorney does not act under state law when performing traditional legal functions, and that merely participating in litigation does not make a party a co-conspirator or joint actor with a judge. The court also stated that Judge Scott was absolutely immune from damages claims based on acts performed in his judicial capacity.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case. It granted Nordin leave to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by October 29, 2021, while expressing doubt that amendment would be worthwhile. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline or otherwise comply with the order would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It also vacated the initial case-management conference scheduled for October 14, 2021.