Berry v. Parodi

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 20, 2024
• Docket: 5:21-cv-08436
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 BRYANNA BERRY, Case No. 21-cv-08436-VKD

9 Plaintiff, FURTHER ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S 10 v. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 AND PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED TRIAL 11 SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICER LINDSAY EXHIBIT 21 PARODI (4426), 12 Re: Dkt. Nos. 65, 67, 82 Defendant.

13 14 In Motion in Limine No. 4, Detective Alvarez1 moved to exclude all evidence and 15 argument regarding any Miranda2 violation, arguing that such evidence and argument is irrelevant, 16 misleading, and unduly prejudicial. See Dkt. No. 65, 67. The parties also dispute the 17 admissibility of Ms. Berry’s proposed trial Exhibit No. 21, which is a copy of Ms. Berry’s 18 Pitchess3 motion filed in the criminal prosecution against her. See Dkt. No. 68-2. Ms. Berry does 19 not contend that her statements are inadmissible by virtue of any failure of police officers to give 20 her a Miranda warning. See Dkt. No. 72 at 6; see also Dkt. No. 72. Rather, the parties’ point of 21 contention is whether any Miranda violation and Ms. Berry’s Pitchess motion are relevant to her 22 malicious prosecution claim. 23 The Court invited further briefing from the parties “including specifically caselaw, that 24

25 1 Defendant previously advised that they are now known as Detective Lindsay Alvarez. For consistency with prior pretrial orders, the Court refers to defendant as Detective Alvarez in this 26 order.

27 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1 bears on the question of whether Ms. Berry may offer evidence of the facts and circumstances that 2 preceded the dismissal of the criminal prosecution against her, and whether counsel may argue to 3 the jury that they should infer from those circumstances that the prosecution lacked merit, or was 4 the product of malicious motivation.” Dkt. No. 72 at 7; see also Dkt. No. 73 at 6. Detective 5 Alvarez filed a supplemental brief. Dkt. No. 82. Ms. Berry did not. Upon consideration of the 6 moving and responding papers, Detective Alvarez’s supplemental brief, as well as the arguments 7 presented at the February 20, 2024 further pretrial conference, the Court grants Detective 8 Alvarez’s Motion in Limine No. 4 and excludes all evidence and argument regarding any Miranda 9 violation, as well as Ms. Berry’s proposed trial Exhibit No. 21. 10 “Malicious prosecution actions are not limited to suits against prosecutors but may be 11 brought . . . against other persons who have wrongfully caused the charges to be filed.” Awabdy v. 12 City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). To prevail on a § 1983 malicious 13 prosecution claim, a plaintiff “must show that the defendants prosecuted her with malice and 14 without probable cause, and that they did so for the purpose of denying her equal protection or 15 another specific constitutional right.” Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 16 1995); see also Awabdy, 368 F.3d at 1066 (same). 17 “Ordinarily, the decision to file a criminal complaint is presumed to result from an 18 independent determination on the part of the prosecutor, and thus, precludes liability for those who 19 participated in the investigation or filed a report that resulted in the initiation of proceedings.” 20 Awabdy, 368 F.3d at 1067. “However, the presumption of prosecutorial independence does not 21 bar a subsequent § 1983 claim against state or local officials who improperly exerted pressure on 22 the prosecutor, knowingly provided misinformation to him, concealed exculpatory evidence, or 23 otherwise engaged in wrongful or bad faith conduct that was actively instrumental in causing the 24 initiation of legal proceedings.” Id. (citations omitted). 25 According to Ms. Berry, the alleged Miranda violation was committed by Sergeant White, 26 who is not a defendant in this action. See Dkt. No. 67 at 3. Ms. Berry believes that the alleged 27 Miranda violation may have been a reason for the dismissal of the criminal prosecution against 1 4. With respect to her Pitchess motion, Ms. Berry posits that the filing of that motion may have 2 caused the prosecutor to dismiss the criminal action, inasmuch as the dismissal occurred on the 3 eve of the Pitchess motion hearing. See Dkt. No. 68 at 3. However, Ms. Berry presents no facts 4 || or evidence that plausibly shows that Detective Alvarez had anything to do with the alleged 5 || Miranda violation. Nor does Ms. Berry present any facts or evidence that sufficiently connects 6 || her Pitchess motion to anything Detective Alvarez did or did not do that was “actively 7 instrumental in causing the initiation of legal proceedings” against Ms. Berry. Awabdy, 368 F.3d 8 || at 1067. The alleged Miranda violation and Ms. Berry’s Pitchess motion therefore are irrelevant, 9 || misleading, and more prejudicial than probative. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. 10 Accordingly, the Court grants Detective Alvarez’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude all 11 evidence and argument regarding any alleged Miranda violation. The Court also sustains 12 || Detective Alvarez’s objection to Ms. Berry’s Pitchess motion (proposed trial Exhibit No. 21). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: February 20, 2024

7 38 □ Vaan, Qu □□□□□□ 5 Virginia K. DeMarchi nited States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28