Kaufman v. CDCR

Background

Joel David Kaufman, a California parolee representing himself, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed certain claims for failure to state a claim. It later granted Defendant Kathy Miley’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint adequately states a legally valid claim, and dismissed the remaining claims.

Kaufman then moved to vacate the judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), which provide ways to seek reconsideration or relief from a judgment. He also requested permission to file a second amended complaint. He argued that his lack of a lawyer and other litigation constituted excusable neglect.

Court’s Analysis

The court found no basis to reconsider its earlier rulings. Kaufman had not identified newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, shown clear error, or identified an intervening change in the law. The court stated that Kaufman had not shown that its conclusion—that his claims were not cognizable under Section 1983—was wrong.

The court nevertheless determined that the judgment needed to be amended concerning the state-law claims. It reaffirmed that those claims could not be pursued under Section 1983, which provides a federal cause of action for certain violations of federal rights by state actors. The court did not decide whether the claims could proceed under state law. Because all federal claims had been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it declined to keep the related state-law claims in federal court.

The proposed second amended complaint did not change the result. The court found that it repeated claims already held not to be cognizable and added a claim challenging a parole condition restricting where Kaufman could live. The court said it was aware of no authority establishing a constitutional right for a parolee to live in an area of choice and stated that Miley would also be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for enforcing the parole condition. The proposed complaint also added an extortion claim, which the court said might be recognized under state law but was not a Section 1983 claim because it did not allege a violation of federal law.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted Kaufman’s motion for reconsideration and for leave to file a second amended complaint in part, to the extent that the judgment was amended. The amended judgment specifies that the state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to Kaufman pursuing them in state court. The court otherwise denied the motion, and the prior dismissal of the federal claims remained unchanged.