Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05406/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05406-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Emmanuel Salazar Estrada
Plaintiff
Stephen Wagstaffe
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

KENNETH EMMANUEL SALAZAR 

ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN WAGSTAFFE,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05406-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Kenneth Salazar Estrada1filed this civil rights action against the San 

Mateo County District Attorney, Stephen Wagstaffe, for filing criminal charges against 

him pursuant to a grand jury indictment.2

 His civil rights complaint containing these 

allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Because prosecutors are immune from suit for filing criminal charges, the damages 

claims in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because this 

 

1

It is unclear whether Estrada is plaintiff’s last name. He lists Salazar as his last name at 

every relevant place in the complaint, yet adds Estrada in the caption. The Court will refer 

to him as Salazar Estrada. 

2

Several other prisoners who are facing these same charges are listed as plaintiffs in this 

action. These plaintiffs are DISMISSED because of the difficulties posed by having 

multiple prisoner-plaintiffs in one action. Salazar Estrada, then, is the sole plaintiff in this 

action. 

Case 3:16-cv-05406-WHO Document 5 Filed 10/03/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court must not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings, Salazar Estrada’s claims 

for injunctive relief are DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that 

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

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Salazar Estrada alleges that the San Mateo County prosecutor has filed baseless 

charges against him for his alleged role in a prison fight in 2015.3 He seeks damages and 

 

3

In his application to proceed in forma pauperis, but not in his complaint, Salazar Estrada 

alleges that San Mateo is the only county that houses rival gangs in the same pod, thereby 

creating a danger to inmate safety. Because these allegations do not appear in the 

complaint, the Court will not address them. If Salazar Estrada has been directly harmed by 

Case 3:16-cv-05406-WHO Document 5 Filed 10/03/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

injunctive relief. 

The damages claims are barred. A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute 

immunity from damages 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). Filing criminal charges, however 

allegedly baseless they may be, is, without doubt, conduct in pursuing a criminal 

prosecution. Accordingly, Salazar Estrada’s claims for damages against defendant are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

The claims for injunctive relief cannot proceed. 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). More specifically, 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.” Id. at 46, 53-54. Younger abstention is required when 

(1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve 

important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise 

the constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 

457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 

Injunctive relief is available only upon a “showing irreparable injury.” Younger, 

401 U.S. at 46. However, “[c]ertain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and 

inconvenience of having to defend against a single criminal prosecution, could not by 

themselves be considered ‘irreparable’ in the special legal sense of that term. Instead, the 

threat to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights must be one that cannot be eliminated by 

his defense against a single criminal prosecution.” Id. 

 

such housing arrangements and seeks relief because of such harm, he should file a separate 

civil rights action. 

Case 3:16-cv-05406-WHO Document 5 Filed 10/03/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Abstention is appropriate here because all of the elements of Younger are present. 

As to the first Younger element, the record shows that plaintiff’s state court proceedings 

are ongoing. As to the second Younger element, the Supreme Court has held that “a proper 

respect for state functions,” such as the ongoing criminal proceedings we see here, is an 

important issue of state interest. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973) 

(quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 44). As to the third prong of Younger, there is no reason 

that Salazar Estrada cannot pursue his claims in state court, such as filing a motion to 

dismiss the charges or offering at trial the same defense to the charges he puts forth in this 

action. 

Furthermore, any interference by this Court in the state court proceedings would 

cause results disapproved of by Younger. SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing cases). Accordingly, the claims for injunctive relief are 

DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in 

favor of defendant, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 3, 2016

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-05406-WHO Document 5 Filed 10/03/16 Page 4 of 4