Coleman v. Ortiz
3:20-cv-03356
N.D. Cal.Jun 15, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Wendell Coleman filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging conduct arising from his state criminal prosecution; some charges were dismissed but he admits at least one conviction.
- Defendants include three county prosecutors (Haley, McLeod, Lind), Judge Ortiz, probation officer Butler, multiple Napa County sheriff and police officers, and municipal entities.
- Coleman alleges malicious prosecution, filing of false charges, use of false testimony, improper judicial rulings (denial of counsel, competency doubts, remand, ankle monitor), falsified probation report, unlawful entries/arrests, threats, and other police misconduct; he also sought a broad temporary restraining order (TRO).
- The court conducted screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1983 pleading standards and found the complaint failed to state claims against identifiable defendants.
- The court dismissed many claims on immunity grounds (absolute prosecutorial, judicial, and probation officer immunity) and dismissed or granted leave to amend other claims for failure to plead plausible constitutional violations, and denied the TRO.
- Coleman was given leave to amend limited claims (with instructions and a filing deadline); the TRO was denied for lack of likelihood of success, lack of imminent irreparable harm, scope problems, and notice concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial immunity for charging/trial conduct | Haley/McLeod/Lind acted maliciously and filed false charges, used false evidence | Prosecutors argue absolute immunity for charging decisions and conduct in prosecution | Court: Dismissed claims against prosecutors with prejudice for absolute prosecutorial immunity |
| Judicial & probation immunity | Judge Ortiz and PO Butler acted improperly, fabricated reports, denied rights | Judicial and probation functions are core judicial-process functions entitled to absolute immunity | Court: Judge and probation officer immune; judge claims dismissed (with leave to amend one allegation of "attempted kidnapping" if factual) |
| Fourth Amendment claims (Branco, Lichau) | Officers executed warrant with weapon drawn, entered property, falsely arrested, searched, and questioned without respecting Miranda | Officers contend actions may have been reasonable given safety information and probable cause; facts are insufficiently pleaded | Court: Some claims dismissed for lack of factual detail; leave to amend as to alleged unreasonable entry/use of force and arrest, but many allegations are conclusory and fail to state a claim |
| Failure to protect / due process (Bohlander, Haggmark) | Officers refused to investigate reports and protect plaintiff/child | Government asserts no constitutional duty to provide general protective services; exceptions unavailable on pleaded facts | Court: Dismissed these claims — no special relationship or state-created danger pleaded |
| Municipal liability (Napa County; Sheriff/Police Depts.) | Municipal entities liable for customs/policies that caused harms | Municipalities argue no specific policy or custom pleaded to support Monell claim | Court: Dismissed municipal claims for failure to plead specific policy/custom and causation; gave guidance on what an amended Monell claim must allege |
| Request for TRO | Coleman seeks wide-ranging TRO halting harassment, suspending state sentence, custody relief, and barring further accusations | Defendants not yet served; relief is extraordinary and must show likelihood of success and imminent irreparable harm | Court: TRO denied — plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success, imminent irreparable harm, relief raised issues beyond complaint scope, and Rule 65(b) notice requirements not met |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (elements of a § 1983 claim)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for conduct in prosecution)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (prosecutorial immunity scope)
- Van De Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2009) (immunity for certain prosecutor administrative tasks related to trials)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (judicial immunity principles)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (judicial acts immune even if in excess of authority or erroneous)
- Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155 (9th Cir. 1985) (probation officer immunity for court-related report preparation)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (scope of absolute immunity assessed by functional comparison to common-law immunities)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (no affirmative due process duty to protect individuals from private actors absent special relationship)
- Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (failure to enforce criminal process does not necessarily create due process violation)
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1995) (knock-and-announce principle under Fourth Amendment)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires actionable policy/custom and causation)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standard for preliminary injunction/TRO)