Johnson v. Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder

Background

Wayne Johnson filed the action without a lawyer against Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Deborah Cooper, Contra Costa County Court Reporter Patricia D. Malone, Contra Costa County Chief Probation Officer Esa Ehmen Krause, and unnamed defendants. He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by state officials.

Johnson alleged that the clerk processed a restraining order that was later voided; that a judge directed the court reporter not to record his objections during trial; and that the probation officer put false information in his file, leading to his release on parole in Red Bluff, California, for two weeks. He also alleged constitutional violations involving his arrest, detention, trial, conviction, and imprisonment. The opinion states that his conviction was under review in a state appeal and that a related petition challenging his custody was also pending.

The court had previously allowed Johnson to proceed without paying the filing fee. It therefore had to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of an action at this stage if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss: the complaint had to provide enough specific facts to make each claim plausible and give each defendant fair notice of the alleged misconduct.

Court’s Analysis

Claim against the Court Clerk. Johnson alleged that the clerk knew how restraining orders should be issued but processed the order anyway. The court found no facts plausibly showing improper conduct or intentional misconduct, and the complaint did not explain why the order was voided or how the clerk violated § 1983. The court also held that absolute quasi-judicial immunity barred the claim. It treated the clerk’s entry of a judge-issued restraining order as an administrative act that, in context, was part of the judicial function.

Claim against the Court Reporter. Johnson alleged that the court reporter failed to record objections because a judge ordered her not to do so. The court found the timing of this allegation unclear: the complaint gave one date range, while its chronology suggested the events occurred during the trial or hearings on the restraining-order violation. The complaint therefore did not give the court reporter the notice required by Rule 8(a)(2).

The court also explained that, if the alleged failure to record objections occurred during the criminal proceedings, the claim could be barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally prevents a § 1983 claim when proving the alleged wrongdoing would invalidate a conviction or sentence, unless the conviction or sentence has already been reversed on appeal. Because the complaint stated that Johnson’s conviction remained under state appellate review, the court said such a claim would be a direct challenge to that conviction. The court further stated that the court reporter might have quasi-judicial immunity because she allegedly acted at the judge’s explicit direction, but it did not definitively resolve that issue.

Claim against the Probation Officer. Johnson alleged that the probation officer falsely described him as transient, uneducated, and having a substance-abuse problem, causing him to be released on parole in Red Bluff. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that this placement violated California law or a constitutional right. The court also explained that parole officials have absolute immunity for imposing parole conditions because that work is closely connected to decisions to grant or revoke parole. However, the court said it was unclear whether the probation officer’s alleged conduct amounted to imposing parole conditions, so it did not definitively resolve that immunity question.

Disposition

The court concluded that the complaint, as pleaded, did not survive screening under § 1915. The opinion did not state that the action or claims were dismissed. Instead, it allowed Johnson to file an amended complaint by January 5, 2022, if he believed he could cure the identified deficiencies. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.