(PC) Howes v. Superior Court of California, 2:21-cv-00664

Background

Plaintiff Davon Howes, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Judge Bowers, Vallejo Police Department, the Superior Court, and District Attorney Ring, alleging wrongful arrest, excessive force, equal protection and due process violations arising from a preliminary hearing and arrest.
Howes sought dismissal of pending state charges and money damages; he also requested in forma pauperis status, which the court granted and set the required filing-fee payment plan.
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and concluded several defendants were improperly pleaded or immune: Judge Bowers (judicial immunity) and the Superior Court (Eleventh Amendment) were dismissed.
Claims against DA Ring were dismissed for lack of any asserted connection and because of prosecutorial immunity for actions within the judicial phase of prosecution.
The Vallejo Police Department claim (wrongful arrest) was dismissed for failure to plead a Monell theory; the court noted Heck bars damages for convictions not yet invalidated and indicated a wrongful-arrest claim should be stayed while state proceedings are pending.
The excessive-force claim lacked sufficient factual detail and did not name the individual officers; it was dismissed with leave to amend. The court gave Howes 30 days to file an amended complaint complying with rules or face dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial immunity for Judge Bowers (equal protection/due process)	Bowers violated equal protection by favoring a co-defendant and violated due process by continuing the preliminary hearing beyond 60 days without waiver.	Bowers acted in his judicial capacity and within court jurisdiction.	Dismissed: judicial immunity bars § 1983 damages for Bowers' alleged judicial acts.
Eleventh Amendment/state‑agency immunity for Superior Court	Howes named the Superior Court as a defendant.	Superior Court is a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.	Dismissed: Superior Court immune from § 1983 suit.
Prosecutorial immunity for DA Ring	Ring caused deprivation by prosecutorial decisions.	No facts linking Ring to asserted deprivations; prosecutorial actions within judicial phase are absolutely immune.	Dismissed: no personal link pleaded; prosecutorial immunity applies.
Municipal liability and wrongful arrest (Vallejo PD)	Vallejo PD arrested and searched Howes unlawfully and used excessive force.	No Monell policy/custom allegations; claims would implicate pending criminal case.	Dismissed: Monell allegations insufficient; wrongful-arrest damages barred by Heck until conviction invalidated — court would stay a proper Monell claim pending state proceedings; excessive-force claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of factual detail and unnamed officers.

Key Cases Cited

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (definition of frivolous claims under IFP screening)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: short and plain statement; must raise claim above speculative level)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (judicial immunity for judicial acts)
Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1985) (judicial immunity applies despite error or injurious consequences)
Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987) (state agencies and Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (§ 1983 liability requires affirmative link or participation)
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (conclusory allegations insufficient to show personal participation)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions integral to judicial phase)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires a policy, practice, or custom causing the violation)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (damages challenging conviction/imprisonment barred until conviction invalidated)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (stay of civil claims related to pending criminal proceedings appropriate)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (excessive force analyzed under Fourth Amendment objective‑reasonableness standard)
Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2001) (application of Graham in the Ninth Circuit)
Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2002) (balancing test for objective reasonableness of force)