Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00308/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00308-0/pdf.json

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

---

United ForSta the Ntes orther Di n Distr striict oct Cf Califor ouniart

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

 The Court construes plaintiff’s “emergency injunction” as a request for a temporary restraining 1

order or preliminary injunction.

 The probation hearing is set for February 15, 2007. Emergency Injunction, Ex. B. 2

United ForSta the Ntes orther Di n Distr striict oct Cf Califor ouniart

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

S.C. WANG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-00308 SI

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

“EMERGENCY INJUNCTION,”

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND DEFERRING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 17, 2007, and filed a request for an “emergency

injunction” on February 7, 2007. Plaintiff’s complaint relates to the District Attorney of Santa Clara 1

County’s failure to conduct a balanced investigation in domestic violence cases, resulting in an

unspecified wrongful conviction and unspecified harm to plaintiff and his family. Compl. at 1-2. In the

“emergency injunction,” plaintiff appears to challenge a probation report notifying him of a violation

for failing to sign up for or attend domestic violence classes. Emergency Injunction at 2-4. Plaintiff

seeks an injunction preventing the state from proceeding with his probation violation hearing and 2

postponing domestic violence classes and restitution payments until the civil case is over. Id. In

addition, plaintiff asks the Court to alter the frequency and method of his mandated communications

with his probation officer. Id. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case 3:07-cv-00308-SI Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 5
United ForSta the Ntes orther Di n Distr striict oct Cf Califor ouniart

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

I. Plaintiff’s Complaint

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s complaint runs afoul of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule

8(a), which requires that a complaint contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which

the court’s jurisdiction depends . . ., (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Rule 8(e) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further requires that “each averment of a pleading shall be simple,

concise, and direct.” The purpose of these requirements is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The

requirements of Rule 8 ensure that a defendant will be able to respond to the allegations against him or

her. See Edwards v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp., 291 F. Supp. 199, 211 (C.D. Cal. 1968) (stating that “Rule

8(a)(2) envisions the presentation of factual allegations of sufficient clarity and certainty to enable

defendants to determine the basis of plaintiff’s claim and to formulate a responsive pleading”).

As written, the Court cannot decipher the matter at the heart of plaintiff’s complaint. It appears

that plaintiff allegesthat he has been wrongfully convicted of domestic violence by the district attorney.

In addition, plaintiff mentions a case currently pending in the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District,

that he implies may affect this action. However, plaintiff does not identify the case in question, nor how

the case may impact this proceeding.

If plaintiff does in fact seek to hold the district attorney liable for wrongful prosecution, plaintiff

should be aware that district attorneys are generally immune from such suits. The Supreme Court has

held that a prosecutor is immune from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts within their

prosecutorial duties which result in allegedly unlawful arrests or imprisonments. See Imbler v.

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suits or

damages under § 1983 where the activities in question are intimately associated with the judicial phase

of the criminal process, and thus are functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with

full force); Sykes v. California, 497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that as long as a district

attorney is acting within the performance of an integral part of his duties with respect to judicial process,

he is immune from civil liability for those acts). State actors, including prosecutors, are granted absolute

Case 3:07-cv-00308-SI Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 5
United ForSta the Ntes orther Di n Distr striict oct Cf Califor ouniart

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

3

immunity from damages liability in suits under § 1983 for actions taken while performing a duty

functionally comparable to one for which officials were immune at common law. See Miller v. Gammie,

335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (“only the specific function performed, and not the role or title of the

official . . . is the touchstone of absolute immunity”).

Another apparent defect with plaintiff’s complaint is that it names the County of Santa Clara as

defendant. The County is not a proper defendant in a prosecutorial misconduct case. See Ceballos v.

Garcetti, 361 F.3d 1168, 1182 (9th. Cir 2004), rev’d on other grounds, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct.

1951 (2006). Prosecutors have a dual nature: they are both law officers of the county and public

prosecutors pursuant to state authority. Id. at 1182-83. Because the district attorney prosecutes pursuant

to state authority, charges of prosecutorial misconduct must be brought against the State of California

rather than the County of Santa Clara. Id. at 1183. However, a prosecutor acting subject to authority

granted by the state is a state official, and “a state and its officials sued in their official capacity are not

considered ‘persons' within the meaning of § 1983, due to the sovereign immunity generally afforded

states by the Eleventh Amendment.” Id. at n.11, citing Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186,

1188 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, if a district attorney is acting pursuant to his official capacity as a state

prosecutorial authority, both the district attorney and the state are granted sovereign immunity.

Forthe reasons outlined above, plaintiff’s complaint as currently written does not appear to state

a valid legal claim. Furthermore, it is too vague to give defendant fair notice of the claims against it. 

II. Plaintiff’s Request For An Emergency Injunction

Requests for injunctive relief may be satisfied by either of two sets of criteria. The "traditional"

test requires the movant to: (1) establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the

possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance

of hardships favoring the movant; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest.

See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.

1980). The "alternative" test requires that the movant demonstrate either a combination of probable

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925

Case 3:07-cv-00308-SI Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 5
United ForSta the Ntes orther Di n Distr striict oct Cf Califor ouniart

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

4

(9th Cir. 2003). Under either test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376

(9th Cir. 1985).

Plaintiff’s request for an emergency injunction is deficient because prosecutors and probation

officers, acting in their role as state agents, are entitled to near total immunity from suits seeking

damages. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431; Sykes, 497 F.2d at 200; Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 156-58

(9th Cir. 1985) (probation officers have absolute immunity for preparing sentencing reports for use by

state courts). Plaintiff does not argue, and the Court does not see, any reason why principles of

immunity do not apply in this case. Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success

on the merits, or even to raise serious questions, and his application for injunctive relief must be denied.

See Bernhardt, 339 F.3d at 925.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s request for an “emergency injunction” is DENIED. (Docket No. 4). Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. (Docket No. 1). If plaintiff chooses to file an amended

complaint, plaintiff must clarify the allegations to ensure that they comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a), as discussed above. In addition, plaintiff will need to allege grounds other than wrongful

prosecution or wrongful actions by the probation officer because, as explained above, prosecutors and

probation officers acting within their capacity as state officers are granted total immunity from suit for

actions taken within the scope of that capacity. Should plaintiff wish to file an amended complaint, he

must do so on or before February 28, 2007. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by that date,

the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. Consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis will be deferred until an amended complaint is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00308-SI Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 5
United ForSta the Ntes orther Di n Distr striict oct Cf Califor ouniart

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

5

Case 3:07-cv-00308-SI Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 5 of 5