1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOSEPH R. LEON, Case No. 23-cv-05513-CRB (PR)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 10 v.

11 PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 2) 12 Defendant(s).

13 On May 17, 2021, while a pre-trial detainee in custody at the Santa Clara County Jail, 14 Joseph R. Leon filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

asserting 15 a claim of excessive bail. See Leon v. Smith, No. 21-cv-03720-VC, slip op. at 1 (N.D. Cal. May 16 19, 2022) (order). On March 25, 2022, the court (Chhabria, J.) conditionally granted the petition 17 if the Santa Clara County Superior Court does not hold a constitutionally compliant bail hearing 18 within 21 days. The superior court held a bail hearing on April 8, 2022, reduced bail to $50,000, 19 and ordered Leon released subject to various conditions. Leon agreed to the conditions, and he 20 was released on bail on April 29, 2022. The court then dismissed as moot Leon’s federal habeas 21 case on May 19, 2022. 22 On October 23, 2023, Leon, still out on bail, filed the instant pro se complaint under 42

seeking money damages from the Santa Clara County Superior Court judges who 24 previously set his bail tool high and from the superior court judge he claims is mishandling an 25 ongoing family law matter. Leon also seeks money damages from the People of California for 26 criminally charging him with a prior he claims never occurred. 27 Leon also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under

. Based 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 A federal district court may dismiss an action brought IFP at any time if the court 4 determines that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 5 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

(e)(2). 7 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 8 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 9 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

42, 48 (1988). 11 B. Legal Claims 12 It is well established that a state judge generally is “immune from suit for money 13 damages.” Mireles v. Waco,

(1991). This immunity is overcome in only two sets of 14 circumstances.

. “First, a judge is not immune from liability from nonjudicial actions, 15 i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, 16 though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”

(citations 17 omitted). “[W]hether an act by a judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate[s] to the nature of the act itself, 18 i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, 19 i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Spakman,

, 20 362 (1978). A “complete absence of all jurisdiction” means a clear lack of subject matter 21 jurisdiction. Miller v. Davis,

(9th Cir. 2008). 22 Leon seeks money damages from the state superior court judges who initially set his bail 23 tool high in his pending criminal matter and from the state superior court judge he claims is 24 mishandling an ongoing family law matter. But none of the actions by the state superior court 25 judges in connection with Leon’s ongoing state criminal prosecution or family law matter involve 26 nonjudicial actions or judicial actions taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See 27 Mireles,

. The named superior court judges consequently are “immune from suit ] The state district attorney or prosecutor charging Leon with the prior at issue on behalf of 2 || the People of California also is immune from suit for money damages. It is well established that 3 state prosecutors are immune from suit for money damages for their conduct in “pursuing a 4 || criminal prosecution” when, as here, they act within their role as an “advocate for the State” and 5 || their actions are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. 6 || Pachtman,

(1976).! Leon may be able to challenge the prior in federal court 7 || via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but generally only after his state criminal proceedings 8 are completed and he has exhausted state judicial remedies. See Carden v. Montana,

, 9 || 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1980). 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED under

(e)(2) for 12 || failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and/or seeking monetary relief against a 13 defendant who is immune from such relief. 14 The clerk is instructed to close the case and terminate the motion appearing on ECF as 3 || ttem number 2. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. i 17 || Dated: March 25, 2024 18 a E ~— CHARLES R. BREYER 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' The Eleventh Amendment “immunize[s]” the State of California “from suit in federal 28 court by citizens and noncitizens alike.” Kohn v. State Bar of Cal.,

(9th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (citations omitted).