Kaufman v. CDCR
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-05043
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Kaufman v. Miley, Judge White granted the motion to dismiss, granted more filing time, and denied a request to strike a filing.
Joel David Kaufman’s remaining claims against parole officer Kathy Miley were dismissed; the court also granted Kaufman additional time to file a supplemental opposition and denied Miley’s motion to strike it.
What happened
In Kaufman v. Miley, Joel David Kaufman, a California parolee representing himself, sued his parole officer under a federal civil-rights law.
Kaufman claimed that the officer violated his right to access the courts by denying permission to attend a probate-court hearing, and violated his free-speech rights by restricting social-media use and a visit to his father. The court said these restrictions were parole conditions enforced by the officer.
Judge Jeffrey White ruled that parole officers have immunity from lawsuits over imposing or enforcing parole conditions, even when the conditions are allegedly unconstitutional. The court granted the motion to dismiss, granted Kaufman’s request for more time to file a supplemental opposition, denied the officer’s motion to strike that opposition, and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Kaufman v. CDCR · No. 4:22-cv-05043
- Jeffrey White
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
Joel David Kaufman, a California parolee proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his parole officer, Kathy Miley. The operative pleading was his amended complaint. Some claims had already been dismissed, leaving three claims against Miley.
Kaufman alleged that Miley violated his right to access the courts by denying him permission to travel to Contra Costa County to attend a probate-court conservatorship hearing. He also alleged that Miley violated his First Amendment rights by prohibiting his use of social media and denying permission for him to visit his father in Contra Costa County.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the nonmoving party, while not accepting conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences. The court also construed Kaufman’s self-represented pleading liberally.
The court took judicial notice of the agreement setting out Kaufman’s parole provisions. It concluded that his parole conditions prohibited social-media use, attendance at the court hearing, and the visit to his father. The court explained that parole officers have quasi-judicial absolute immunity from lawsuits arising from the imposition of parole conditions. That immunity applies even when the parole conditions are alleged to be unconstitutional. Because Kaufman’s remaining claims were based on Miley’s enforcement of those conditions, the court held that Miley was immune and that the claims failed to state a claim for relief.
Rulings
The court granted Miley’s motion to dismiss. It granted Kaufman’s motion for an extension of time to file his supplemental opposition and denied Miley’s motion to strike that opposition. The court stated that an attorney who later agreed to represent Kaufman could file a motion asking the court to reconsider the order. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.