Owens v. Foils

Background

Kenneth Oliver Owens, identified as a pretrial detainee at the San Mateo County Jail, filed a complaint without a lawyer seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued several San Mateo County Superior Court judges based on alleged wrongdoing in cases in which he had appeared.

Owens alleged that a San Mateo County Superior Court judge improperly sentenced him in 1991, although the opinion states that the conviction was overturned. He also alleged that Judge Follis illegally incarcerated him in 2003 after striking his wife’s testimony. He described a 2018 case before Judge Ayoob in which he represented himself and was found not guilty by all twelve jurors. He further alleged that Judge Greenberg dismissed a 2022 robbery case but made an improper statement on court transcripts.

Screening standard

The court explained that federal courts must screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must dismiss a complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the rule that state judges generally are immune from lawsuits seeking money damages for their judicial acts. The opinion identified two exceptions: an act that was not judicial in nature, or a judicial act taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. The court explained that whether an act is judicial depends on the nature of the act and whether the parties dealt with the judge in the judge’s judicial capacity. A complete absence of jurisdiction means a clear lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court concluded that none of the alleged actions by the San Mateo County Superior Court judges involved nonjudicial conduct or judicial actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. The complaint therefore failed to state a claim for relief and/or sought monetary relief from a defendant immune from that relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and/or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. The clerk was instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.

Judge

The order was signed by Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge.