Adam Tenser v. Beth Silverman
20-56176
| 9th Cir. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Tenser, an attorney, sued prosecutors, detectives, and Twin Towers officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from events surrounding his involvement in a client’s murder prosecution and a subsequent contempt citation.
- He alleged constitutional violations (First Amendment/right to petition, Fourth Amendment seizure, due process, equal protection, and interference with attorney–client access) and sought damages.
- The district court dismissed all individual-defendant claims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), denied default judgment, and denied leave to amend; Tenser appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reviews denials of leave to amend and default judgment for abuse of discretion.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: prosecutors and certain witnesses were immune; claims against detectives and Twin Towers staff failed to state constitutional violations; procedural challenges (default, amendment) were properly denied; the complaint also violated Rule 8 for prolixity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor immunity | Mokayef and Silverman engaged in actionable conduct leading to contempt, so §1983 liability lies | Their conduct was prosecutorial and "intimately associated with the judicial phase," so absolute immunity applies | Absolute immunity bars Tenser's claims against the prosecutors; claims dismissed |
| Detective liability (witness declarations, petition, seizure, equal protection) | Detectives Cotter and Martindale caused contempt via declarations, violated right to petition and Fourth Amendment seizure, and treated Tenser differently | Declarations as witnesses are absolutely immune; no duty to respond to complaints; courthouse escort on judge's order is not a seizure; discretionary decisions preclude class-of-one claim | Claims against detectives fail for absolute immunity and failure to state Fourth Amendment, petition, and equal protection claims |
| Twin Towers camera rule (speech, due process, equal protection) | In‑person access to imprisoned client is constitutionally required; camera rule and interruptions impaired right to practice and were discriminatory | No constitutional right to in-person over video; brief interruptions don't violate right to practice; rule applied alike to similarly situated attorneys | Claims against Twin Towers defendants fail to state First Amendment, due process, or equal protection violations |
| Procedural issues: default judgment, leave to amend, Rule 8 | Silverman failed to timely answer; Tenser sought leniency and leave to amend | Motion to dismiss tolled answer period; Tenser is an attorney (not entitled to pro se leniency); amendment would be futile; complaint violates Rule 8 | District court did not abuse discretion denying default and denying leave to amend; complaint violates Rule 8 for being prolix |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors have absolute immunity for conduct intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Torres v. Goddard, 793 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying Imbler to prosecutorial actions closely tied to judicial process)
- Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1989) (witnesses and declarants are protected by absolute immunity for testimony-related acts)
- Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Emp., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463 (1979) (no constitutional obligation to respond to citizen complaints in context of petition rights)
- Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 1994) (escorting a person from courthouse on judicial order is not a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (compelled court appearances based on declarations do not necessarily constitute seizures)
- Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2012) (discretionary official decisions undermine class-of-one equal protection claims)
- Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2003) (temporary interruptions to practice do not necessarily violate right to practice law)
- Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaints must be short, plain, and concise; prolix pleadings can be dismissed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (distinguishing leniency owed to pro se nonlawyers from pleadings drafted by lawyers)