(PS) Sermeno v. Elmallah

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02808
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY ALTAMIRANO SERMENO, Case No. 2:23-cv-2808-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHARIF ELMALLAH., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Sharif Elmallah, the Clerk / Chief Administrative Officer 18 at Butte County Superior Court, violated his constitutional rights by enforcing the court’s local 19 rules. As articulated, the complaint does not state a viable claim. Therefore, I will dismiss the 20 complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the 21 required showing and will be granted. 22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 25 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 27 relief. Id. 28 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 2 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 3 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 4 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 5 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 6 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 7 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 8 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 9 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 10 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 11 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 12 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 13 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 14 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 15 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 16 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 17 Analysis 18 Plaintiff alleges that he tried to file a habeas corpus petition with the Butte County 19 Superior Court, but defendant informed him that (1) the next time he tried to file a document, the 20 court would charge him for copies, and (2) the court was not responsible for any technical 21 deficiencies in plaintiff’s filings, such as an incorrect case number.1 ECF No. 1 at 7-8. Plaintiff 22 further alleges that defendant failed to train his employees and implemented policies and practices 23 that violated his constitutional rights. Id. at 13-14. In essence, plaintiff appears to allege that 24 defendant’s enforcement of the court’s local rules violated his constitutional right to access to 25 court. Id. at 7. 26 As an initial matter, the complaint does not definitively state that plaintiff was denied 27

28 1 It is unclear from the complaint whether plaintiff filed his habeas petition. 1 access to court. It appears that the court clerk informed plaintiff that the next time he tried to file 2 documents, he would need to comply with local rules. There is no indication that plaintiff later 3 tried to file documents that were rejected. As it stands, plaintiff has not alleged an access to court 4 claim. 5 Separately, defendant appears to be immune from this action. Court clerks have absolute, 6 quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are 7 an integral part of the judicial process. Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. For the D. Of Nev., 828 F.2d 8 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1979). 9 Clerks qualify for quasi-judicial immunity unless they acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. 10 Mullis, 828 F.2d 1385. 11 Here, even if defendant refused to file plaintiff’s documents, defendant’s decision to 12 accept and file documents is a basic and integral part of the judicial process. The complaint 13 makes no allegation that defendant acted outside of his role as court clerk. Indeed, plaintiff 14 alleges that the clerk court told plaintiff that he would enforce the court’s local rules next time 15 plaintiff tried to file documents with the court. Thus, defendant should be entitled to immunity 16 from plaintiff’s claim for damages. Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390; see also Juarez v. Clerk, U.S. Fed. 17 Ct, No. C 08-5691 RMW (PR), 2009 WL 385796 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2009) (district court 18 clerk was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for allegedly failing to send the plaintiff 19 court opinion denying his previously filed federal case); White v. Dep’t of Corrs., No. CIV F-01- 20 1796 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 5246161 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008) (California Supreme 21 Court clerk is immune from damages for allegedly refusing to give the plaintiff’s court 22 documents to magistrate judge); Palacios v. Fresno County Super. Ct., No. CIV F-08-0158 at *2- 23 3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2008) (Fresno County Superior Court clerks were entitled to absolute quasi- 24 judicial immunity for allegedly providing the plaintiff with misinformation). 25 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 27 2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 28 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 1 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 2 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 3 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 4 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 5 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 27, 2025 qe 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28