(PC) Casity v. Amador County, 2:24-cv-02449

Plaintiff Richard D. Casity, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Casity named as defendants: Amador County Superior Court Judge Renee Day, Deputy District Attorney Sherri Lynn Adams, and Amador County.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of claims against Judge Day and DA Adams based on absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, and found the pleading deficiencies could not be cured as to those defendants.
The complaint made no specific allegations against Amador County, nor any claim of improper policy or custom.
The district court adopted in part the recommendations, dismissing claims against Judge Day and DA Adams without leave to amend, but granted Casity leave to amend his complaint against Amador County only.
Plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint against Amador County or risk dismissal for failure to comply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial immunity for Judge Day	Casity argues for liability over alleged sentencing misconduct	Judge Day asserts absolute judicial immunity	Judge Day dismissed, immunity applies
Prosecutorial immunity for Adams	Casity alleges prosecutorial misconduct	Adams claims quasi-judicial immunity	Adams dismissed, immunity applies
Sufficiency of allegations against Amador County	Casity names county but provides no particulars	County: No policy/custom alleged	Leave to amend granted
Leave to amend	Casity should get another chance (pro se status)	Deficiencies cannot be cured (for Day and Adams)	Leave to amend only re: County

Robles v. City of Berkeley, [citation="820 F. App'x 529"] (9th Cir. 2020) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires showing of policy or custom)
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (pro se litigant must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear amendment is futile)