Angela Morelli v. Joshua Hyman
20-16506
| 9th Cir. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Angela Morelli, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit arising from child custody proceedings.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Claims against a private individual (Hyman) were dismissed for failure to plead state action.
- Claims against the County of Maui were dismissed as time-barred under Hawaii’s two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions.
- Claims against the State of Hawaii and against Hawaii judges were dismissed on Eleventh Amendment and judicial-immunity grounds, respectively; claims against the United States were dismissed as frivolous.
- The district court denied further leave to amend as futile; the Ninth Circuit affirmed and granted Morelli’s motion to file multiple reply briefs. The decision is nonprecedential and was decided without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hyman is a state actor for § 1983 purposes | Morelli alleged constitutional violations tied to Hyman’s role in custody proceedings | Hyman is a private actor and not subject to § 1983 absent state action | Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege state action sufficient to invoke § 1983 |
| Whether claims against County of Maui are timely | Morelli maintained her claims were viable despite delay | County argued Hawaii’s two-year personal-injury statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims | Court: Dismissed — claims time-barred under Hawaii law applied to § 1983 actions |
| Whether the State of Hawaii and its judges are subject to suit | Morelli sought relief against the State and judges for custody-related conduct | State invoked Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; judges invoked absolute judicial immunity | Court: Dismissed — Eleventh Amendment bars suit against the State; judges immune for judicial acts |
| Whether claims against the United States are legally sufficient | Morelli pursued claims against the United States arising from the same facts | Government argued claims lack any arguable legal or factual basis | Court: Dismissed as frivolous — claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact |
| Whether leave to amend should be allowed | Morelli requested leave to amend to cure defects | Defendants and court noted defects were incurable and amendment would be futile | Court: Denial of further leave to amend affirmed as amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- George v. Pac.-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1996) (private-party constitutional claims require state action)
- Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (apply forum state’s personal-injury statute of limitations to § 1983 actions)
- Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages or injunctive relief against a state)
- Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal without leave to amend proper when amendment would be futile)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts do not consider arguments not raised in the opening brief)