de Tagle v. Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-00041
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In de Tagle v. Superior Court, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Austin de Tagle’s complaint without leave to amend after screening, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The ruling dismissed Austin de Tagle’s complaint, including claims concerning his and his children’s rights, damages claims, and request to order Judge Hendrickson’s impeachment.
What happened
In de Tagle v. Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Austin de Tagle challenged state-court proceedings involving a child-support order and asserted that his or his children’s rights were violated. He also sought damages and asked the federal court to order Judge Hendrickson’s impeachment.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal after screening the complaint. The recommendation said the complaint did not show a violation of substantive rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, that damages claims against Judge Hendrickson were barred by judicial immunity, that other damages claims were also barred and lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and that a federal court could not order impeachment under California’s state-law process.
No objections were filed, and Judge Martinez-Olguin adopted the recommendation in full. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, citing earlier dismissed cases involving the same state-court proceedings.
The detailed version
- de Tagle v. Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara · No. 3:24-cv-00041
- Martinez-Olguin
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Austin de Tagle filed a complaint concerning state-court proceedings and a state-court order requiring him to pay child support. The complaint asserted claims concerning his and his children’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also sought monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that allows certain claims against government actors, and asked the federal court to order the impeachment of Judge Hendrickson.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
The magistrate judge granted de Tagle’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The recommendation concluded that:
- The complaint did not state a legally recognized claim that the defendants violated de Tagle’s or his children’s substantive due process rights. Substantive due process protects certain fundamental interests, including the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children, but the complaint did not allege conduct showing a violation of those rights.
- To the extent de Tagle sought damages under § 1983 against Judge Hendrickson, the claims failed to state a claim and sought monetary relief from a defendant protected by judicial immunity.
- Other § 1983 damages claims were described as barred by immunity and as lacking subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked authority to decide them.
- The request for Judge Hendrickson’s impeachment failed because California judicial officers can be impeached only through the process established by California law.
District Court’s Ruling
No objections to the recommendation were filed before the deadline. The district court found the recommendation correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and adopted it in every respect. The court dismissed the complaint for the stated reasons. It further ruled that dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate because de Tagle had challenged the same state-court proceedings in at least two other cases that had also been dismissed.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order on April 15, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.