Herships v. State of California Superior Court
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-07208
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Herships v. Smith, Judge Donato allowed fee-free filing but dismissed Herships’s complaint with leave to amend because damages claims against a judge were immune.
Howard Herships’s federal lawsuit was dismissed with leave to amend. The ruling particularly affected his damages claim against Judge Drew Takaichi based on the judge’s rulings in a criminal matter; the opinion also identifies claims against an ADA coordinator and the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office.
What happened
Howard Herships, representing himself, filed an amended complaint against Laurie Smith and others, alleging violations of disability laws and federal civil-rights law. He also asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that Herships’s stated unemployment and monthly income of $960 excused payment of the filing fees. But it found the amended complaint could not proceed as written because Herships sought damages from Judge Drew Takaichi for rulings in a criminal matter, including a decision denying 30 days of custody credits.
Judge Donato dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Herships could file a renewed fee-waiver request and an amended complaint by April 21, 2023; otherwise, the case would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Herships v. State of California Superior Court · No. 3:20-cv-07208
- James Donato
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
Howard Herships, a self-represented plaintiff, filed an amended complaint against several individuals and entities. The opinion identifies among the defendants Drew Takaichi, a judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, sued in his official capacity; an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator with the California Superior Court; and the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office.
Herships alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed an application to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees.
Court’s Analysis
The court first considered the fee-waiver application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Herships stated that he was unemployed and had monthly income of $960. The court found that his financial status excused payment of the filing fees.
The court then screened the amended complaint. Federal law permits dismissal at any time of a fee-waived complaint that seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.
Herships sought damages from Judge Takaichi based on adverse rulings in a criminal matter, which Herships described as retaliation for seeking accommodations. The court held that the claim could not proceed because judges generally have immunity from suits for money damages based on judicial acts. It determined that Judge Takaichi’s decision to deny Herships 30 days of custody credits was a judicial act protected by that immunity.
Disposition
Judge Donato dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Herships was permitted to file a renewed application to proceed without paying filing fees and an amended complaint consistent with the order by April 21, 2023. The court stated that any damages claims against Judge Takaichi would need to make clear that judicial acts were not the basis for those claims. The court further stated that failure to amend by the deadline would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.