Owens v. Lee

Background

Kenneth Oliver Owens, a pretrial detainee at the San Mateo County Jail, filed a complaint representing himself. He sought money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The defendants included several San Mateo County Superior Court judges and Deputy District Attorney Tabi Yasmin.

Owens alleged that the judges improperly allowed Yasmin to add prior “strike” conviction enhancement allegations in his ongoing state criminal prosecution. He also suggested that the judges allowed a lower burden of proof than state law requires. Owens separately requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that law, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also noted that it must interpret complaints filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court held that the named Superior Court judges were immune from money-damages claims. Their alleged conduct involved judicial actions in Owens’s ongoing criminal prosecution, and Owens did not allege actions taken outside their judicial roles or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

The court also held that Deputy District Attorney Yasmin was immune from money-damages claims for conduct connected to pursuing the criminal prosecution while acting as the state’s advocate and performing work closely related to the judicial phase of the case.

Disposition

Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered that the complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court also denied Owens’s request to proceed without paying filing fees because it found the action clearly frivolous or without merit. The opinion text does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.