Malberg v. Cashen

Background

Martin Malberg sued Robert Cashen, Allison Dundas, and Christine Guerra, who represented Malberg’s wife in the state-court divorce proceedings. Malberg proceeded without a lawyer. He alleged that the defendants violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by seeking, on his wife’s behalf, a restraining order against him. He also cited federal criminal statutes concerning conspiracy to violate rights and seditious conspiracy, and requested damages, injunctions, and criminal penalties.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Malberg had previously filed a related federal case based on the same defendants and conduct, asserting a First Amendment theory. The court had dismissed that earlier case with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Reasons for the ruling

The court first applied claim preclusion, also called res judicata. This doctrine prevents a party from bringing a later case based on claims that were raised or could have been raised in an earlier case. The court found that the two cases involved the same events, parties, and claims, even though Malberg relied on different constitutional amendments, added a federal statute, changed his damages request, and sought additional injunctions. Because the earlier dismissal was with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), the court treated it as a final decision on the merits. The court therefore held that claim preclusion barred Malberg’s claims.

The court also analyzed the civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of federal rights and conduct by someone acting under color of state law, meaning using authority fairly attributable to the state. The court held that the defendants’ status as California attorneys, their status as officers of the court, and their use of state legal procedures did not make them state actors. The court therefore found that Malberg had not stated a § 1983 claim.

The court separately ruled that private individuals cannot use federal criminal statutes to seek civil relief or criminal penalties against other people. It dismissed Malberg’s claims based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 2384 for lack of standing.

Because the court dismissed all grounds for federal-question jurisdiction and Malberg did not invoke diversity jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. It dismissed any unspecified or implied state-law claims, such as possible claims concerning fraud or fabricated evidence, without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The operative order dismissed without leave to amend any claim purportedly arising from the Second or Fourteenth Amendments, § 1983, or 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 2384. It also dismissed without leave to amend any remaining unspecified or implied state-law claim, without prejudice to refiling that claim in state court.

The opinion contains an inconsistency: an earlier passage says the motion was granted with leave to amend, while the final order says the complaint was dismissed without leave to amend. This summary follows the final order.