5 6 7 10 11 CHRISTINA MOORE, Case No. 1:23-cv-00846-EPG 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 KEITH FAGUNDES, 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN Defendants. TWENTY-ONE DAYS 16 (ECF No. 1) 17 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 18 COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
19 20 Plaintiff Christina Moore (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 21 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on June 22 2, 2023, seeks to hold Kings County District Attorney Keith Fagundes liable for failing to file a 23 proper information in a state criminal case against Plaintiff. Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss the 24 state criminal case with prejudice and to enter a permanent injunction requiring Kings County to 25 adopt appropriate policies related to the hiring and supervision of its police officers and sheriffs.1 26 1 On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of removal to federal court averring that the United States of America had 27 removed case number 20CMS-4632A (the state criminal case identified in Plaintiff’s complaint) to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d). The United States has not removed Plaintiff’s state criminal case to this Court. 28 Moreover, Plaintiff’s notice does not identify any statutory basis applicable to her that would allow her state criminal 1 The Court concludes that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims. Under settled 2 Federal law, prosecutors are immune from lawsuits for damages based on their work as 3 prosecutors in the case. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may 6 have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action 7 or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 8 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 9 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 10 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 12 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 13 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. 14 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 15 this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 16 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 17 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s 18 legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 19 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 20 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 21 pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). 23 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that her Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff also alleges 24 violations of her rights pursuant to the California constitution and California Penal Code Sections 25 739, 849, 859, 861, 864, 865, 866.6, 871.6, 876, 877, and 883. (Id.) 26
27 case to be removed to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (listing the type of defendants who may remove a criminal prosecution that is commenced in state court to federal court). As the Court is recommending that Plaintiff’s case be 28 dismissed, the Court will take no action on Plaintiff’s notice of removal. 1 Plaintiff alleges as follows: 2 The District Attorney was negligent in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities by 3 not filing a proper information as provided in California Penal Code 872 in the Superior Court of 4 the county within 15 days after commitment according to California penal Code 739. (Id., p. 4). Plaintiff alleges that the violations at issue in her complaint took place on March 17, 2022, and 5 September 14, 2022. (Id.) In support of her complaint, Plaintiff includes as an exhibit an 6 information filed against Plaintiff in Kings County Superior Court and affidavit of fact filed by 7 Plaintiff in the criminal case. (Id., pp. 7-12). 8 Plaintiff’s affidavit states that Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause on September 9 14, 20202, in Courtroom 5 of the Kings County Superior Court. (Id., p. 10). Plaintiff’s affidavit 10 lists several deficiencies as to her arrest and charges. (Id., pp. 11-12). 11 As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss the criminal case with prejudice. 12 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 13 Although Plaintiff provides very few facts in her complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff’s 14 claims cannot proceed. Plaintiff is seeking to sue Defendant for prosecuting her in a criminal case 15 and for actions performed by Defendant in his role as a prosecutor. But prosecutors are immune 16 from such lawsuits under settled law, as the Ninth Circuit has explained: 17 Prosecutors performing their official prosecutorial functions are entitled to absolute immunity against constitutional torts. The Supreme Court has held that 18 this rule follows for the same reason that prosecutors were given immunity at 19 common law—without it, resentful defendants would bring retaliatory lawsuits against their prosecutors, and because a prosecutor “inevitably makes many 20 decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional deprivation[, d]efending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique 21 and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 342, 129 S.Ct. 855, 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 22 424 U.S. 409, 425–26, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)) (internal quotation 23 marks omitted). Without the promise of immunity from suit, a prosecutor would be distracted from his duties and timid in pursuing prosecutions rather than exercising 24 the independent judgment and discretion that his office requires. See id. Moreover, “the judicial process is available as a check on prosecutorial actions,” and it 25 reduces the need for private suits for damages to keep prosecutors in line. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991); see Mitchell v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
5 6 7 10 11 CHRISTINA MOORE, Case No. 1:23-cv-00846-EPG 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 KEITH FAGUNDES, 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN Defendants. TWENTY-ONE DAYS 16 (ECF No. 1) 17 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 18 COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
19 20 Plaintiff Christina Moore (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 21 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on June 22 2, 2023, seeks to hold Kings County District Attorney Keith Fagundes liable for failing to file a 23 proper information in a state criminal case against Plaintiff. Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss the 24 state criminal case with prejudice and to enter a permanent injunction requiring Kings County to 25 adopt appropriate policies related to the hiring and supervision of its police officers and sheriffs.1 26 1 On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of removal to federal court averring that the United States of America had 27 removed case number 20CMS-4632A (the state criminal case identified in Plaintiff’s complaint) to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d). The United States has not removed Plaintiff’s state criminal case to this Court. 28 Moreover, Plaintiff’s notice does not identify any statutory basis applicable to her that would allow her state criminal 1 The Court concludes that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims. Under settled 2 Federal law, prosecutors are immune from lawsuits for damages based on their work as 3 prosecutors in the case. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may 6 have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action 7 or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 8 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 9 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 10 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 12 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 13 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. 14 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 15 this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 16 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 17 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s 18 legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 19 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 20 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 21 pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). 23 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that her Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff also alleges 24 violations of her rights pursuant to the California constitution and California Penal Code Sections 25 739, 849, 859, 861, 864, 865, 866.6, 871.6, 876, 877, and 883. (Id.) 26
27 case to be removed to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (listing the type of defendants who may remove a criminal prosecution that is commenced in state court to federal court). As the Court is recommending that Plaintiff’s case be 28 dismissed, the Court will take no action on Plaintiff’s notice of removal. 1 Plaintiff alleges as follows: 2 The District Attorney was negligent in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities by 3 not filing a proper information as provided in California Penal Code 872 in the Superior Court of 4 the county within 15 days after commitment according to California penal Code 739. (Id., p. 4). Plaintiff alleges that the violations at issue in her complaint took place on March 17, 2022, and 5 September 14, 2022. (Id.) In support of her complaint, Plaintiff includes as an exhibit an 6 information filed against Plaintiff in Kings County Superior Court and affidavit of fact filed by 7 Plaintiff in the criminal case. (Id., pp. 7-12). 8 Plaintiff’s affidavit states that Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause on September 9 14, 20202, in Courtroom 5 of the Kings County Superior Court. (Id., p. 10). Plaintiff’s affidavit 10 lists several deficiencies as to her arrest and charges. (Id., pp. 11-12). 11 As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss the criminal case with prejudice. 12 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 13 Although Plaintiff provides very few facts in her complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff’s 14 claims cannot proceed. Plaintiff is seeking to sue Defendant for prosecuting her in a criminal case 15 and for actions performed by Defendant in his role as a prosecutor. But prosecutors are immune 16 from such lawsuits under settled law, as the Ninth Circuit has explained: 17 Prosecutors performing their official prosecutorial functions are entitled to absolute immunity against constitutional torts. The Supreme Court has held that 18 this rule follows for the same reason that prosecutors were given immunity at 19 common law—without it, resentful defendants would bring retaliatory lawsuits against their prosecutors, and because a prosecutor “inevitably makes many 20 decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional deprivation[, d]efending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique 21 and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 342, 129 S.Ct. 855, 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 22 424 U.S. 409, 425–26, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)) (internal quotation 23 marks omitted). Without the promise of immunity from suit, a prosecutor would be distracted from his duties and timid in pursuing prosecutions rather than exercising 24 the independent judgment and discretion that his office requires. See id. Moreover, “the judicial process is available as a check on prosecutorial actions,” and it 25 reduces the need for private suits for damages to keep prosecutors in line. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991); see Mitchell v. 26 Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 522–23, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“[T]he 27 2 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s civil complaint form states that the incidents giving rise to her complaint took place 28 on March 17, 2022, and September 14, 2022. (ECF No. 1, p. 4). 1 judicial process is largely self-correcting: procedural rules, appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for damages actions to prevent 2 unjust results.”). 3 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 912 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Ashelman v. Pope, 793 4 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986) (Prosecutorial immunity protects a prosecutor who “acts within 5 his or her authority and in a quasi-judicial capacity”); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home 6 Village, 723 F.2d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 1984) (“If the prosecutor acts as an advocate ‘in initiating a 7 prosecution and in presenting the State's case,’ absolute immunity is warranted.”). 8 That is not to say that Plaintiff has no way to challenge a charge or conviction that is improper. Plaintiff may do so (subject to certain limitations) in her criminal case, through appeal 9 of any criminal conviction, or through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. However, Plaintiff 10 may not sue the prosecutors in her criminal case for pursuing criminal charges as part of their 11 prosecutorial function. 12 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s case. The Court 14 also does not recommend giving leave to amend. Although this is Plaintiff’s first complaint, it is 15 clear that Plaintiff is attempting to sue a state prosecutor for actions performed in his role as 16 prosecutor. Prosecutors acting within their prosecutorial functions are immune from such 17 lawsuits, and thus leave to amend such a claim would be futile. 18 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. 20 2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case. 21 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one 23 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 24 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 25 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 26 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 27 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 28 1 Finally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office assign a district judge to this case. 2 3 | ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 3, 2023 jp) Phy 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28