Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03705/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03705-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNELIUS LOPES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOSEPH DALE WREN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-03705 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss or in the alternative for a more

definite statement of defendants Lisa Faria and Shara Mesic, Alameda County Deputy

District Attorneys (“the prosecutors”). Also pending is plaintiff’s motion to file a Fourth

Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED. The Court will consider the prosecutors’

motion as it applies to the allegations of the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed with the Court

on November 22, 2006. After carefully considering the allegations of all of plaintiff’s

complaints, and the arguments of defendants, the Court concludes that plaintiff does not state

a claim against defendant Faria and the claim against defendant Mesic is barred by the

doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity.

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-03705-CRB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

DISCUSSION

In Count 8 of his complaint plaintiff alleges that defendant Lisa Faria asked defendant

police officer Joseph Dale Wren to follow up with his initial police report about the incident

involving plaintiff and a bicyclist. Plaintiff alleges that Faria asked for this “direction” in

order to give Wren probable cause to obtain a warrant for plaintiff’s arrest. In Count 9,

plaintiff accuses defendant Shara Mesic of withholding exculpatory evidence from plaintiff.

Plaintiff does not state a claim against defendant Faria. After amending his complaint

four times he accuses her–at most–of asking defendant Wren to follow up on his police

report and, in particular, asking Wren to find the bicyclist that plaintiff had allegedly

assaulted. Such conduct, if true, does not under any circumstances constitute a violation of

plaintiff’s civil rights. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against defendant Faria must be

dismissed. The dismissal is without leave to amend. As plaintiff has already amended four

times it is apparent he cannot allege facts to state a claim against Faria.

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Mesic is barred by the doctrine of absolute

prosecutorial immunity. Such immunity immunizes a prosecutor from any monetary liability

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for actions taken in his role as a prosecutor. Prosecutorial

immunity “is based upon the same purpose that underlies the immunity of judges and grand

jurors acting within the scope of their duties: to protect the judicial process.” See Milstein v.

Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). “Specifically, absolute immunity for

prosecutors is warranted (1) to allow prosecutors to focus their energies on prosecuting,

rather than defending lawsuits, (2) to enable prosecutors to exercise independent judgment in

deciding which suits to bring and conducting them in court, (3) to preserve the criminal

justice system’s function of determining guilt or innocence by ensuring that triers of fact are

not denied relevant (although sometimes conflicting) evidence because of prosecutors’ fear

of suit, and (4) to ensure fairness to defendants by enabling judges to make rulings in their

favor without the subconscious knowledge that such rulings could subject the prosecutor to

liability.” Id.

Case 3:06-cv-03705-CRB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\3705\orderreprosecutors.wpd 3

Prosecutorial immunity is based on “the nature of the function performed, not the

identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. at 1008 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). The official seeking immunity “bears the burden of showing that such immunity is

justified for the function in question.” Id. “[A]cts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing

for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role

as an advocate for State, are entitled to the protections of absolute immunity.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Absolute prosecutorial “immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant

without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him

of liberty. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the

broader public interest.’” Id. at 1007-08 (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427

(1976)). Moreover, prosecutorial misconduct is deterred “by the threat of criminal

prosecution and professional discipline, and by prosecutors’ accountability to either superiors

or the electorate.” Id. at 1008.

Plaintiff’s allegations fall squarely within the doctrine. He accuses Mesic, in Mesic’s

role as prosecutor, from failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. Such conduct if true, and

even if willful, is immune from a civil action for damages. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427 n.34. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against Mesic must be dismissed. Again, the dismissal is

without leave to amend as plaintiff has already amended his complaint four times and it is

apparent that he cannot allege a claim based on conduct which falls outside Mesic’s absolute

immunity.

CONCLUSION

The claims against the prosecutors are DISMISSED without leave to amend. Plaintiff

and counsel for the remaining defendants shall appear for a case management conference on

January 12, 2006 at 8:30 a.m..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03705-CRB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\3705\orderreprosecutors.wpd 4

Case 3:06-cv-03705-CRB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 4