Johnson v. Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder

Background

Wayne Johnson filed a Second Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments related to a restraining order that he alleged was void from the beginning. He also cited 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the California Constitution, and common law. The complaint alleged that he was jailed, held without bond during trial, did not receive credit for some time served, and spent additional time in prison and on parole-related restrictions.

Johnson further alleged that the Chief Probation Officer, Esa Ehmen Krause, included false information about his residence and the nature of his conviction in information provided to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. According to the complaint, this information contributed to his placement in Red Bluff, where he alleged he lacked food or shelter and faced risks related to his health and race. Johnson also sued Contra Costa County, Court Clerk Deborah Cooper, Court Reporter Patricia D. Malone, and others.

Screening standard

Because Johnson was proceeding without a lawyer and under the statute governing cases filed without prepaying fees, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court applied a standard similar to the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It also said that complaints filed without a lawyer should be read liberally and ordinarily should not be dismissed without an opportunity to amend unless the defects could not be corrected.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on its earlier screening ruling in holding that claims against Cooper and Malone were barred by absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The court therefore dismissed those defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The opinion did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation to that dismissal.

As to Krause, the court held that the Second Amended Complaint satisfied the initial screening requirement. It alleged facts that could support an inference that Johnson’s placement in Red Bluff was contrary to the public interest or violated a constitutional right. The court also concluded that the pleaded facts did not establish, as a matter of law at this stage, that Krause’s alleged conduct was protected by immunity for imposing parole conditions. The court stated that these conclusions were without prejudice to Krause later moving to dismiss.

As to Contra Costa County, the court also held that the complaint satisfied initial screening. Read liberally, the complaint alleged that the county knew about the risks of sending Johnson to Red Bluff and deliberately provided false information to the state corrections department. The complaint also sought a change in county policy concerning false and harmful information in prisoner files. The court stated that this conclusion was without prejudice to the county later moving to dismiss.

Disposition

The Clerk of Court was ordered to issue summonses to Contra Costa County and Esa Ehmen Krause. The U.S. Marshal or the Clerk’s Office was directed to serve those defendants without requiring advance payment of fees. Deborah Cooper and Patricia D. Malone were dismissed. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Johnson’s claims against the county or Krause.