Sternberg v. Hendrickson

Opinion

MICHAEL C. STERNBERG, et al., Case No. 24-cv-04271-AMO

Plaintiffs, ORDER RE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTION TO DISMISS

CINDY HENDRICKSON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 34 Defendants.

The Honorable Patricia Guerrero, Chief Justice of California, the Honorable Mary J. Greenwood, Administrative Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Cindy Hendrickson, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Brooke Blecher, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Roberta S. Hayashi, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Beth A.R. McGowen, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (erroneously sued as Beth McGowan), the Honorable Theodore C. Zayner, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Charles F. Adams, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (erroneously sued as “Charles Adames”), Rebecca J. Fleming, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (together, “Judicial Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint filed by Michael C. Sternberg. He proceeds, unrepresented, on behalf of himself and his two children, E.W. and N.W.,1 seeking redress for various alleged violations of federal law that occurred during the course of child custody proceedings across California and Nevada. Judicial Defendants seek dismissal on many grounds, including that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Eleventh Amendment. Because “Eleventh Amendment immunity is a threshold jurisdictional issue, and [courts] have no power to resolve claims brought against state courts or state court judges acting in a judicial capacity[,]” that issue is dispositive and warrants dismissal without leave to amend. See Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty., 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024). As the Ninth Circuit recently explained:

In [Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39, 141 S.Ct. 2494, 210 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2021)], the Supreme Court reemphasized Ex parte Young’s conclusion that “ ‘an injunction against a state court’ or its ‘machinery’ ‘would be a violation of the whole scheme of our Government.’ ” 595 U.S. at 39, 141 S.Ct. 2494 (quoting Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 163, 28 S.Ct. 441). As such, state court judges cannot be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh Amendment. To the extent [Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364-65 (9th Cir. 2004)] can be read to hold that the Ex parte Young exception allows injunctions against judges acting in their judicial capacity, that conclusion is “clearly irreconcilable” with Jackson and thus overruled. See Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 82 F.4th 664, 686 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (citation omitted). Consistent with Jackson, Eleventh Amendment immunity is a threshold jurisdictional issue, and we have no power to resolve claims brought against state courts or state court judges acting in a judicial capacity. Id. at 981. In an attempt to avoid dismissal on Eleventh Amendment grounds, Sternberg asserts:

I am not seeking injunctive relief against any state judicial officers in their judicial capacities . . . . I am seeking injunctions against California state judges acting in administrative (i.e. non judicial) capacities, specifically Guerrero and Emede. I am also targeting the Santa Clara Superior Court CEO Fleming. I am asking this court to order them to stop violating my constitutional rights, to stop enforcing unconstitutional policies, rules, and laws, and to remove my name from the vexatious litigant list. Resp. to California Judiciary Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”) (Dkt. No. 38) at 6. The attempt to restyle the roles of these Judicial Defendants as administrative fails, as they are nonetheless entitled to absolute judicial immunity for the acts alleged in the complaint, all of which arose in the context of ongoing family law proceedings. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227 (1988) (“resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court” are “paradigmatic judicial acts.”); Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that “[r]uling on a motion is a normal judicial function”). Nor does the attempt at restyling Plaintiffs’ claims as seeking prospective relief save them from dismissal. See Hart v. Falls, No. 23-55280, 2024 WL 2828812, at *1 (9th Cir. June 4, 2024) (applying Munoz in rejecting argument the plaintiff’s argument that she was entitled to prospective relief against state court judges). In any event, dismissal without leave to amend is additionally warranted because Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims are not viable as a matter of law. “[S]tates and state officers sued in their official capacity are not considered persons under section 1983.” Venegas v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. 4th 820, 829 (2004); see also D’Souza v. Guerrero, No. 24-2537, 2025 WL 636706, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025) (“Plaintiffs may not sue Chief Justice Guerrero in her official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Only ‘persons’ are subject to suit under § 1983.”). /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 For these reasons, Judicial Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. While Sternberg 2 asks that any dismissal be without prejudice because he has “no access to [his] own Santa Clara 3 Superior Court file, State Bar of California investigative files, District Attorney files, etc.[,]” Opp. 4 } at 11, dismissal WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND is nonetheless appropriate. The Eleventh 5 Amendment and absolute judicial immunity bar Plaintiffs’ claims. In addition, Judicial 6 Defendants are not subject to suit under Section 1983.7 Further amendment would thus be futile. 7 See Narula v. Orange Cnty. Superior Ct., No. 21-55974, 2022 WL 17500721, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 8 8, 2022) (holding district court did not err in dismissing without leave to amend where the claims 9 were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 10 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend where defendants 11 were entitled to absolute judicial immunity). 13 Dated: September 8, 2025

14 of □ □

z ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN = 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 * Tn light of these bars to suit, the Court does not reach the remaining bases on which Judicial Defendants seek dismissal.