Johnson v. Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder

Background

The court previously allowed Wayne Johnson to proceed without paying the filing fee and gave him an opportunity to correct problems identified during an earlier review. This order reviewed his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Johnson alleged constitutional violations involving a five-year restraining order issued on October 2, 2018; his arrest, detention, and conviction for violating that order; the conduct of the trial judge and Court Reporter; and his release from prison to Red Bluff, California. He alleged that the California Court of Appeal later declared the restraining order void from its beginning. He sought damages, policy changes, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a jury trial. The opinion states that his underlying conviction and a related petition for a writ of habeas corpus were pending on appeal.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a case filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court applied a standard similar to the standard for deciding whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It also said that allegations filed without a lawyer must be read liberally and that leave to amend ordinarily should be given unless the defects cannot be corrected.

Claims and analysis

Court Clerk. Johnson challenged the Clerk’s entry of the restraining order, arguing that it should not have been entered without service of a temporary restraining order. The court held that the amended complaint alleged the Clerk entered the order as directed by the judge and did not plausibly show that the Clerk improperly performed her duties. It therefore held that absolute quasi-judicial immunity barred the claim. This immunity protects certain nonjudicial officers when they perform administrative acts at a judicial officer’s explicit direction as part of the judicial function.

Court Reporter. Johnson alleged that the trial judge directed the Court Reporter not to record his objections. The court held that recording court proceedings at a judge’s direction was an administrative act closely connected to the judicial function. It therefore held that absolute quasi-judicial immunity also barred this claim.

Probation Officer. Johnson alleged that the Probation Officer knowingly included false information in his report to cause Johnson to be sent to a community where he had no connections and where his life was at risk. The court held that the amended complaint did not allege enough facts to support an inference that the placement violated the public-interest requirement in California Penal Code § 3003 or violated a constitutional right. The court also stated that the allegations did not establish, as a matter of law, that the Probation Officer’s conduct involved imposing parole conditions, an area in which probation officers have absolute immunity.

Disposition

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not survive Section 1915 review. It held that the claims against the Court Clerk and Court Reporter were barred by absolute quasi-judicial immunity and that the claim against the Probation Officer required additional factual allegations. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley permitted Johnson to file a second amended complaint by March 28, 2022, and warned that failure to do so could result in a report and recommendation that the complaint be dismissed.