Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00899/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00899-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

KEVIN LEE McCULLOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY O’MALLEY, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-0899-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a detainee, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first amended complaint was 

dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff has filed a second

amended complaint. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 24 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 5
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

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II

Plaintiff alleges that a superior court judge, several 

district attorneys and various public defenders are conspiring to 

have him and other African-Americans prosecuted.

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court 

should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by 

granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 

circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). 

Federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal 

prosecutions absent a showing of the state's bad faith or 

harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is 

"flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional 

prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and 

inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special 

circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal 

court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every 

"clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is 

applied). 

Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary 

circumstance" that (1) the party seeking relief in federal court 

does not have an adequate remedy at law and will suffer 

irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 24 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 

401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is incompetent by 

reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 

(1973). A party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of 

honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators. See

Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 713 

(9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

A state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for 

damages for acts performed in his judicial capacity. See Pierson 

v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity 

to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Judicial immunity is an 

immunity from suit for damages, not just from an ultimate 

assessment of damages. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 

526 (1985).

A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from 

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his conduct in "pursuing a 

criminal prosecution" insofar as he acts within his role as an 

"advocate for the State" and his actions are "intimately 

associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." 

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). But prosecutors 

are entitled only to qualified immunity when they perform 

investigatory or administrative functions, or are essentially 

functioning as police officers or detectives. Buckley v. 

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). 

A public defender does not act under color of state law, an 

essential element of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when 

performing a lawyer’s traditional functions, such as entering 

pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, cross-examining 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 24 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

witnesses, and making closing arguments. Polk County v. Dodson, 

454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981). It matters not that the public 

defender failed to exercise independent judgment or that he was 

employed by a public agency; it is the nature and context of the 

function performed by the public defender that is determinative 

under Polk County. Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 

465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Action under color of state law can be found if a plaintiff 

can plead and prove facts which show that the public defender 

conspired with state officials. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 

914, 919-20 (1984).

Plaintiff names as defendants a superior court judge, 

several district attorneys and public defenders and alleges that 

they are corrupt and are engaged in a conspiracy to prosecute him

and others due to their race. He seeks injunctive relief and 

money damages. The prior complaints were dismissed with leave to 

amend for Plaintiff to address Younger abstention and immunity as 

discussed above.

Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies in the second 

amended complaint that existed in his prior complaints. He has 

failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant 

intervention. Moreover, Plaintiff states that he has now been 

convicted. Complaint at 4. If Plaintiff has been convicted then 

his claims are foreclosed by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994). In order to recover damages for an allegedly 

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm 

caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or 

sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 24 Filed 08/23/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by 

a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 

U.S. at 486-87. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to 

a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 

cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.

Nor has Plaintiff sufficiently shown that Defendants are not 

entitled to immunity based on the legal standards above. For all 

these reasons, this action is dismissed. Because Plaintiff has 

already been provided several opportunities to amend and because 

further amendment would be futile, this case is dismissed with 

prejudice.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

2. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/18/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\McCullom0899.dis.docx

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 24 Filed 08/23/16 Page 5 of 5