Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02099/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02099-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASONJA PORTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2099 MCE GGH PS

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

__________________________________/

Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On December 4, 2006, this court directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint,

and to obtain counsel for their minor children who were plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have now filed an

amended complaint in which they have eliminated the minors as plaintiffs.

The determination that plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis does not

complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to

dismiss the case at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief against an immune defendant. The court cannot make this determination on the present

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 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 Plaintiffs have incorrectly referred to Henderson as Davis Henderson. 1

2

record. Therefore, the court reserves decision on these issues until the record is sufficiently

developed. 

Plaintiffs have named two defendants who were acting in their capacity as

prosecutors, David Henderson and Chris Burkely. 

1

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983

which challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. 

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Determining whether a prosecutor's actions are

immunized requires a functional analysis. The classification of the challenged acts, not the

motivation underlying them, determines whether absolute immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope,

793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986)(en banc). The prosecutor's quasi-judicial functions, rather than

administrative or investigative functions, are absolutely immune. Thus, even charges of

malicious prosecution, falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment

of exculpatory evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. See Stevens v.

Rifkin, 608 F.Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984).

The allegations against these prosecutors are that the District Attorney for Yolo

County approved a discriminatory practice, policy, procedure and custom which harmed plaintiff

Jones. It is not clear at this stage of the proceedings whether Henderson is absolutely immune

based on the allegations. Therefore, plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed against this defendant

at the present time, as well as all other defendants except defendant Burkely.

Plaintiffs allege that prosecutor Burkely withheld exculpatory evidence from the

court. This defendant is absolutely immune based on these allegations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Burkely be

dismissed from this action with prejudice. 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is

directed to serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4, including a copy of this court’s status order, without prepayment of costs. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiffs seven USM-285 forms, one

summons, a copy of the amended complaint, an appropriate form for consent to trial by a

magistrate judge, and this court’s status order. 

3. Plaintiffs are directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date

this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process. The court

anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require at least:

a. One completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant; 

c. A copy of the endorsed filed amended complaint for each defendant,

with an extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; and

d. A copy of this court’s status order for each defendant. 

4. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to

effectuate service on any defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is

directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 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

4

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S.

Marshal, 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030. 

DATED: 4/10/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS,

GGH:076 - Porter2099.srv.wpd UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 4