Sumith Samarakoon v. Judge Richard Distaso, Tracy Toledo, Yvette Allivato, Jennifer Tercerro, and Lea May Sarte

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Sumith Samarakoon leave to proceed in forma pauperis but finds that the complaint fails to state cognizable claims against most defendants. The court concludes that requested relief concerning the state-court custody judgment is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that claims against Judge Distaso, Tercerro, and Allivato are generally subject to judicial, quasi-judicial, or quasi-prosecutorial immunity, except that the complaint adequately alleges a judicial-deception claim against Allivato. The court grants Plaintiff an opportunity to amend.

Holdings

1. The IFP motion was granted because the plaintiff's financial information showed that he lacked sufficient resources to pay the filing fee.
2. The complaint could not obtain injunctive relief restoring parental contact, releasing sealed state-court records, or correcting custody findings because those requests sought review or reversal of a state-court judgment barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
3. Absolute judicial immunity barred claims for relief based on Judge Distaso's conduct during the custody proceedings, including the custody decisions, handling of evidence, interview procedures, and recusal decision.
4. Absolute quasi-judicial immunity barred claims based on Tercerro's performance of family-court-services functions, including interviewing the child, preparing the FCS report, and handling the CPS closure report.
5. Allivato's alleged fabrication or misrepresentation in a treatment summary was not protected by quasi-prosecutorial immunity because the complaint adequately pleaded judicial deception.
6. The complaint did not adequately plead a § 1983 conspiracy because it alleged no facts showing communication, agreement, collusion, shared unlawful objective, substantial cooperation, or proximate causation between the private defendants and state actors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's IFP application satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
2. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal or limitation under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
3. Whether the plaintiff could seek referral of defendants to criminal or administrative authorities in this civil action.
4. Whether judicial immunity barred claims against the state-court judge for conduct taken during custody proceedings.
5. Whether quasi-judicial immunity barred claims against the family-court-services evaluator.
6. Whether quasi-prosecutorial immunity applied to Allivato's alleged conduct and whether the complaint adequately pleaded judicial deception.
7. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded a § 1983 conspiracy involving private defendants and state actors.
8. Whether the plaintiff should receive leave to amend.

Disposition

other