Turner v. Dennis
4:17-cv-07361
| N.D. Cal. | Mar 8, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Turner parked a disabled vehicle in an SFMTA bus zone, received a $288 parking citation, and pursued de novo review in San Francisco Superior Court under Cal. Veh. Code § 40230, where he lost.
- Plaintiff attempted to file an Application for Certification to transfer the case to the Court of Appeal under Cal. R. Ct. 8.1005; Superior Court clerks allegedly refused to file the Application on multiple attempts.
- Plaintiff sued the Superior Court, five Superior Court employees in their official capacities, and the SFMTA director under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (access-to-courts), a California constitutional access claim, and a Monell claim against the Superior Court.
- Magistrate Judge recommended varied dismissals (some with leave to amend) based on quasi-judicial and sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim.
- District Judge reviewed de novo and concluded Plaintiff lacked a cognizable injury because no statutory right to appeal exists from a § 40230 superior court judgment; therefore dismissal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusal to file certification application violated federal right of access to courts under § 1983 | Clerks’ refusal prevented Turner from pursuing appellate review, causing actual injury to his right of access | No federal right to appeal exists from a § 40230 superior court judgment; therefore no actual injury from being denied certification | Dismissed: no access-to-courts injury because no statutory right to appeal exists; claim fails as a matter of law |
| Municipal liability (Monell) for the Superior Court’s alleged policy | Superior Court policy/refusal caused constitutional violation | Monell requires an underlying constitutional violation; none exists here | Dismissed: Monell claim fails without underlying constitutional violation |
| State-law access claim under California Constitution — supplemental jurisdiction | Turner asserts parallel state constitutional claim | Federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims | Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Immunity defenses and leave to amend | Turner sought relief against court employees and SFMTA director; objected to dismissal of one employee | Magistrate had recommended dismissals on immunity/failure-to-state grounds | Court rejected magistrate’s approach as unnecessary because no appeal right exists; dismissed entire complaint without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (access-to-courts claim requires actual injury to underlying nonfrivolous claim)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (right of access requires showing of actual injury)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for unconstitutional policy or custom)
- People v. Mazurette, 24 Cal. 4th 789 (2001) (appeal is statutory; no appeal unless statute provides)
- Smith v. City of L.A. Dep’t of Transp., 59 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 7 (1997) (judgment under Veh. Code § 40230 is not appealable)
- Lagos v. City of Oakland, 41 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 10 (1995) (no statute provides for appeal from § 40230 decision)
- Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal without leave to amend appropriate when amendment cannot cure defects)