Foster v. Lu CA2/2
B603845
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Ricky Tyrone Foster, a state prisoner serving life, sued Judge Elaine Lu after she dismissed his earlier civil case (No. 14K08085) for Foster’s failure to appear and later struck his amended complaint and motions.
- Foster originally sued four prison officials claiming they failed to timely file his petition for review; that action was dismissed without prejudice in 2015; Foster pursued post-dismissal filings and appeals in the superior court appellate division.
- Foster filed the present action (Jan. 22, 2020) against Judge Lu alleging due process and § 1983 violations based on the 2015–2016 rulings and seeking declaratory relief, orders affecting the California Supreme Court, damages, and vacatur of the earlier dismissal.
- Judge Lu demurred; the superior court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment, and Foster appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Judge Lu immune from suit for judicial acts and identifying alternative bases for dismissal (lack of jurisdiction to set aside prior orders, statutes of limitation, failure to present a written claim for damages, and lack of merit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Lu is immune from suit for her judicial acts | Foster claimed relief (including declaratory/injunctive) should be allowed despite immunity (relying on Consumers Union) | Judge Lu argued absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts, extending to declaratory and injunctive relief | Court: Judicial immunity bars the suit; immunity covers declaratory and injunctive relief |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to set aside prior superior court orders | Foster sought vacatur of the 2016 dismissal and other prior rulings | Lu argued the superior court lacked jurisdiction to set aside earlier orders | Court: No jurisdiction to set aside earlier superior-court orders |
| Whether Foster’s § 1983/due process claims were time-barred | Foster implicitly contended claims were timely enough to proceed | Lu argued federal-claims limitations period applies (two years under adopted forum rule) | Court: First and third causes of action barred by the applicable statute of limitations |
| Whether monetary claims were procedurally barred or meritless (default/tort claim) | Foster argued Lu should have entered default and that he was deprived of prosecution rights; sought damages | Lu argued damages claims were barred for failure to file a written government claim and that dismissal of the underlying case was proper due to Foster’s default | Court: Monetary claims barred by failure to present a written claim; dismissal of underlying action was not erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (establishes absolute judicial immunity as necessary for independent judiciary)
- Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir.) (judicial immunity extends to declaratory and injunctive relief)
- Moore v. Urquhart, 899 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.) (discusses § 1983 amendments and immunity from injunctive relief)
- Frazier v. Moffatt, 108 Cal.App.2d 379 (California authority recognizing judicial immunity)
- Oppenheimer v. Ashburn, 173 Cal.App.2d 624 (California precedent describing civil immunity of judiciary)
- Alvarez v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 1107 (no jurisdiction to set aside earlier superior-court orders)
- Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.) (forum limitations period adopted for § 1983 claims)
- Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist., 49 Cal.3d 699 (tort damages barred without a timely written claim presented to public entity)
- In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637 (frivolous and vexatious litigation and sanctions standards)