Fuller v. Thompson
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-03802
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Fuller v. Thompson, Judge Rogers dismissed Fuller’s case, dismissed his damages claims without allowing amendment, and denied counsel’s request as moot.
Kenneth Adrian Fuller’s federal action was dismissed. His requests for injunctive and declaratory relief were dismissed under Younger abstention, and the identified monetary-damages claims were dismissed without leave to amend; the official-capacity damages claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Sonoma County judges, public defenders, and court-appointed psychologists were the defendants affected by those rulings.
What happened
Kenneth Adrian Fuller, formerly held at the Sonoma County Main Jail, filed a self-represented civil-rights lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law against Sonoma County judges, public defenders, and court-appointed psychologists. He challenged events in his criminal case, including the denial and later granting of his request to represent himself, and sought court orders, damages, and appointment of counsel.
The court dismissed the requests for court orders because Fuller’s state criminal proceedings appeared to be ongoing, and federal courts generally must not interfere when the person can raise constitutional issues in state court. The court also dismissed the damages claims: judges were protected for actions taken in their judicial roles, public defenders were not acting as state officials when performing traditional legal work, the psychologists were protected from liability for testimony, and damages claims against officials in their official capacities were barred. The court did not allow amendment of these damages claims.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the action, certified that an appeal without paying filing fees would not be in good faith, and denied Fuller’s request for appointed counsel as moot. The clerk was directed to close the file.
The detailed version
- Fuller v. Thompson · No. 4:22-cv-03802
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 5, 2023
Background
Kenneth Adrian Fuller, who was formerly in custody at the Sonoma County Main Jail, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had paid the full filing fee. Fuller sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, punitive damages, and appointment of counsel.
The complaint concerned Fuller’s state criminal case rather than the conditions of his confinement. Based on what the court could decipher from the handwritten complaint, Fuller alleged that Sonoma County Superior Court judges had misused California Penal Code § 1368 in connection with his request to represent himself. He also named Sonoma County public defenders and court-appointed psychologists. He alleged that the defendants acted under color of law to deny him adequate access to the courts in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Screening and Younger Abstention
Because Fuller had been incarcerated when he filed the case and sought relief from governmental actors, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires a court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant.
The court applied the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally prevents a federal court from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings through injunctive or declaratory relief. The court found that the relevant conditions were met: the state criminal proceedings appeared to be ongoing; the prosecution involved important state interests; and Fuller could raise his federal constitutional concerns in the state trial and appellate courts. The court also found no plausible allegation of the exceptional circumstances that might permit federal intervention, such as immediate and irreparable harm, bad faith, harassment, or a biased state tribunal.
The court therefore dismissed the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because Younger abstention was warranted. The opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional allegations on their merits.
Damages Claims
The court separately identified several barriers to Fuller’s claims for monetary damages.
• Official-capacity claims: Fuller sued the defendants in both their individual and official capacities. The court held that damages claims against the defendants in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment because there had been no waiver. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice.
• Judges: The court dismissed the claims against the Sonoma County judges because the challenged conduct involved acts performed in their judicial capacities, for which judges have immunity from damages claims.
• Public defenders: The court held that Fuller could not establish the state-action element required for a § 1983 claim based on the public defenders’ alleged inadequate representation. Public defenders do not act under color of state law when performing traditional functions of a lawyer, including representation related to a client’s mental competency.
• Psychologists: The court held that the court-appointed psychologists had absolute immunity from liability for alleged perjury in statements made to the superior court. Witnesses are immune from damages liability for testimony in earlier court proceedings, even when the testimony is alleged to be false.
The court dismissed without leave to amend all monetary-damages claims against the Sonoma County judges, public defenders, and court-appointed doctors or psychologists. It also dismissed without leave to amend the monetary-damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as to Fuller’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief because Younger abstention applied. It dismissed without leave to amend the specified monetary-damages claims. The court certified that any appeal proceeding without payment of filing fees would not be taken in good faith. Fuller’s request for appointment of counsel was denied as moot, and the clerk was ordered to close the file. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.