Opinion
24-cv-00041-VKD
03-06-2024
AUSTIN DE TAGLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE DISMISSAL RE: DKT NO 5
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Austin de Tagle, who is representing himself, filed a complaint commencing this civil rights action and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on January 3, 2024. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. On January 29, 2024, the Court issued an order granting Mr. de Tagle's IFP application. The Court also screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), found it did not state a claim for relief, and gave him an opportunity to file an amended complaint by February 28, 2024. Dkt. No. 5. Mr. de Tagle has not filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of his deadline to do so.
This Court does not have the consent of all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73; Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to reassign this action to a district judge, with the following report and recommendation that Mr. de Tagle's complaint be dismissed.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In his complaint, Mr. de Tagle alleges that defendants, the Superior Court of California for the Santa Clara and Judge Cindy Hendrickson, issued child support orders which violated his and his children's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2. Asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and his two minor children, Mr. de Tagle asks the Court to award $300,000,000.00 in damages and to impeach Judge Hendrickson. See Dkt. No. 1.
Reviewing Mr. de Tagle's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court concluded that: (1) his damages claims against Judge Hendrickson are barred by judicial immunity; (2) his damages claims against the Superior Court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are not cognizable under § 1983; and (3) California judicial officers can only be impeached through the process established by state law. See Dkt. No. 5 at 3-4. The Court also concluded that Mr. de Tagle failed to state a claim for violation of his or his children's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment on the merits. Id. at 4-5. The Court granted Mr. de Tagle leave to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies but cautioned that “[i]f Mr. de Tagle fails to file an amended complaint in time, or if the amended complaint fails to cure all defects described above, the Court may issue an order reassigning the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part.” Id. at 5.
The screening order gave Mr. de Tagle a deadline of February 28, 2024 to file his amended complaint. Id. at 1, 5. Mr. de Tagle did not file an amended complaint, and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly, the Court orders this case reassigned to a district judge with the recommendation that the claims in Mr. de Tagle's complaint be dismissed on the following bases:
(1) Mr. de Tagle fails to state a cognizable claim for violations of his or his children's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process clause protects the “interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children” and “freedom of personal choice in matters of family life.” See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). However, these rights are not unlimited. Mr. de Tagle refers to a state court order that requires him to pay child support, but he fails to allege any conduct by defendants that constitutes a violation of his or his children's substantive due process rights. See Dkt. No. 5 at 4-5.
(2) To the extent Mr. de Tagle seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge Hendrickson, his claims should be dismissed because the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226-27 (1988); Dkt. No. 5 at 3-5.
(3) To the extent Mr. de Tagle seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, his claims should be dismissed because the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii); Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); Dkt. No. 5 at 3-5. Additionally, these claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999).
(4) To the extent Mr. de Tagle asks the Court to order Judge Hendrickson's impeachment, his complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, California judicial officers can only be impeached through the process established by state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Dkt. No. 5 at 4.
Any party may serve and file objections to this report and recommendation within 14 days after being served. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Civil L.R. 72-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.