Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02824/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02824-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 –

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-2824-BAS-AGS

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

[ECF No. 63]

v.

TIMOTHY G. O’CONNOR, et al.

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

A brief history of a few of Plaintiff Gavin Davis’s earlier lawsuits is useful. 

In 2016, Mr. Davis filed a lawsuit against his ex-wife, the San Diego Superior Court, 

two judges, three attorneys, a local law firm, the San Diego Police Department, the 

San Diego District Attorney, the San Diego County Public Defender and a Deputy 

Public Defender, alleging that they committed acts of perjury, colluded and conspired 

against him and had defrauded him in various family and criminal law proceedings. 

(16-cv-897-BTM.) The court dismissed that action under the Younger abstention 

doctrine. (ECF No. 55.)

In 2017, Mr. Davis filed three federal lawsuits. The first he filed against the 

San Diego District Attorney, the San Diego Public Defender, Deputy District 

Attorney Trinh and his ex-father-in-law Gregory Unruh, alleging that they were 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 69 Filed 06/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 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

vindictively and maliciously prosecuting him in a state criminal case. (17-cv-654-

JLS.) The court dismissed the case explaining in part that Deputy District Attorney 

Trinh had absolute immunity for his actions in initiating the criminal prosecution 

against Mr. Davis. (ECF No. 95.)

In the next case, Mr. Davis filed a lawsuit against the FBI and his ex-fatherin-law Unruh claiming Mr. Unruh had cyberstalked him and that the FBI had done 

nothing to investigate this cyberstalking. (17-cv-701-BAS.) The Court dismissed 

the case against the FBI, finding the failure to investigate was a discretionary 

function entitling the FBI to sovereign immunity. (ECF No. 21.) The Court gave 

Mr. Davis leave to amend the petition with respect to Defendant Unruh, but Mr. 

Davis declined to do so.

Finally, in 2017, Mr. Davis filed a lawsuit against the FBI and Mr. Unruh 

alleging they had committed a Brady violation in his state criminal prosecution. (17-

cv-1997-BAS.) Mr. Davis moved to join Deputy City Attorney Timothy O’Connor 

and the City Attorney’s Office, alleging they had conspired with the FBI and Unruh 

to violate his rights in the criminal prosecution. The Court gave Mr. Davis 

permission to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 36), but instead Mr. Davis opted 

to voluntarily dismiss the case.

It is against that backdrop that Mr. Davis now files a duplicate complaint 

against Mr. Unruh and Deputy City Attorney O’Connor alleging: (1) that Mr. 

O’Connor committed a Brady violation during a criminal prosecution of Mr. Davis; 

(2) abuse of process; (3) malicious prosecution; (4) intentional infliction of emotional 

distress; and (5) conspiracy. (ECF No. 54.) 

Mr. Unruh has yet to be served, but Mr. O’Connor moves to dismiss the 

complaint as to him. For reasons that should be familiar to Mr. Davis, the Court 

GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 63.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 69 Filed 06/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 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

Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 

must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true and must construe 

them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. 

Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). To avoid a 

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, 

rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting 

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (alteration in original). A court need 

not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

Despite the deference the court must pay to the plaintiff’s allegations, it is not proper 

for the court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not 

alleged or that defendants have violated the...laws in ways that have not been 

alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of 

Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

III. ANALYSIS

Prosecutors, like Defendant O’Connor, are entitled to absolute prosecutorial 

immunity for acts taken in their official capacity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 

430–31 (1976); Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 341 (2009). “[A]bsolute

immunity may not apply when a prosecutor is not acting as ‘an officer of the court,’ 

but is instead engaged in other tasks, say investigative or administrative tasks.” Van 

de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 342 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n.33.) The burden of 

showing absolute immunity falls on the official seeking to assert it, and the Supreme 

Court has emphasized that courts are “quite sparing” in recognizing absolute 

immunity. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486–97 (1991) (quoting Forrester v. White,

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 69 Filed 06/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 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

484 U.S. 219, 224 (1988)).

Courts take a functional approach to determining whether immunity applies.

Thus, in Imbler, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors were absolutely immune 

from damages in civil suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for initiating criminal 

prosecutions and presenting cases. 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Similarly, in Van de Kamp, 

the Supreme Court held prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity from 

allegations that they failed to turn over impeachment material during the prosecution. 

555 U.S. 335 (2009). Conversely, absolute immunity does not apply when a 

prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, when a prosecutor 

makes statements to the press, or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in 

support of a warrant. Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 343 (citations omitted). 

Mr. Davis alleges that Defendant O’Connor brought state criminal claims 

against him that were baseless and without merit and violated a prosecutor’s 

obligations under Brady v. Maryland during the prosecution. (ECF No. 54.) These 

claims all fall within the traditional scope of absolute immunity. Similarly, the 

claims that Defendant O’Connor intentionally inflicted emotional distress or 

conspired with Defendant Unruh to commit the same violations are barred by the 

doctrine of absolute immunity. 

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES 

WITH PREJUDICE all claims against Defendant O’Connor. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 69 Filed 06/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4