Harrell v. Superior Court of San Mateo County Dept #2A et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESHAWN MAURICE HARRELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO
COUNTY DEPT #2A, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-07438-NW
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT,
DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: ECF No. 3
Plaintiff Eshawn Maurice Harrell, a state detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF Nos. 1, 3. The
Complaint is now before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Harrell identifies “Superior Court District of San Mateo County Dept. #2A Presiding Judge
(08/06/25)” and prosecutor William Wagstaff as Defendants in this action. ECF No. 1 at 1.
Harrell alleges that the unnamed Presiding Judge violated Harrell’s Fourteenth Amendment rights
by denying Harrell’s request to serve his sentence in a drug program. Harrell also alleges that the
denial of his request violated state law. He seeks monetary damages.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts conduct a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress
from a governmental entity, an officer, or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
Case 5:25-cv-07438-NW Document 5 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro
se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699
(9th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Federal Claims
Harrell fails to state a cognizable claim against the unnamed Presiding Judge. Judges are
entitled to absolute immunity for acts within their judicial capacity, even if taken in error or in
excess of their authority. See Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999); see
also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (state court judges have absolute immunity
from suit for damages, not just the assessment of damages). In his Complaint, Harrell alleges that
the judge violated his rights by denying his request to serve his sentence in a drug program.
Imposing a sentence is a judicial act; the judge therefore has absolute immunity from civil suit.
Moreover, although Harrell does not make any factual allegations related to prosecuting attorney
Wagstaff, any claims related to his advocacy during the August 6, 2025 hearing would likewise be
immune from liability. See Imbler v. Patchman, 424 U.S. 409, 430–31 (1976) (holding that
prosecutors are immune for any conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as they were
acting as “advocate[s] for the State” and their actions were “intimately associated with the judicial
phase of the criminal process.”). These claims are therefore DISMISSED; because amendment of
these claims would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend. See Wheeler v. City of Santa
Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed
amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal.”).
B. State Law Claims
Given that Harrell fails to state a cognizable federal claim, the Court presently has no basis
for jurisdiction over Harrell’s state law claim. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and
a “federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary
affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.
1989). Generally, original federal jurisdiction is premised on federal question jurisdiction or
diversity jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiff has not asserted a cognizable violation of federal law or
Case 5:25-cv-07438-NW Document 5 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
shown diversity jurisdiction. Because Harrell cannot amend his federal claims and the face of the
Complaint shows that no diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court concludes that the deficiencies
cannot be cured by amendment. See ECF No. 1 at 1 (stating that Defendants are in San Mateo
County). See Wheeler, 894 F.3d at 1059.
The state law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Harrell seeking relief in
the appropriate venue
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court orders as follows:
1. The claims against the Presiding Judge and Wagstaff are DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a claim.
2. The state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Harrell
seeking relief in the appropriate venue.
3. As no other claims or defendants remain, the case is DISMISSED.
4. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot (ECF No. 3) and close the
file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-07438-NW Document 5 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 3