Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5765
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Daniel Chavez was convicted of attempted sexual abuse, later released on probation subject to a required sex-offender treatment program that mandated admitting guilt before treatment.
- Chavez maintained innocence and had a direct criminal appeal pending; he invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to admit guilt to his therapist, David Robinson.
- Robinson asked Chavez to sign admissions and a release to send statements to the district attorney; Chavez refused, was arrested, spent a month in jail, and Robinson terminated treatment after Chavez sued him and the parole board.
- Chavez filed a pro se in forma pauperis (IFP) § 1983 suit naming his probation officer (Moore), therapist (Robinson), and later the Parole Board; no defendants were served and none appeared in the district court.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), finding absolute and qualified immunity barred Chavez’s claims; Chavez appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) authorizes pre-service, sua sponte dismissal on qualified immunity grounds and reversed as to Chavez’s § 1983 claims because the complaint did not clearly show he could not overcome qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) permits sua sponte dismissal for qualified immunity before defendants are served | Chavez: Court cannot dismiss on qualified immunity grounds pre-service unless defense was affirmatively raised | Defendants/State: § 1915(e) allows courts to screen and dismiss at any time, including pre-service, for immunity (no distinction absolute vs qualified) | Court: § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) covers both absolute and qualified immunity, so pre-service dismissal is permitted only when complaint clearly shows plaintiff cannot overcome the defense |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed Chavez’s § 1983 claims against Robinson and Moore pre-service | Chavez: Complaint did not foreclose evidence to overcome qualified immunity or show Robinson acted under color of state law | District court/defendants: Conduct was lawful under state law; Robinson not acting under color of state law; qualified immunity applies | Court: Dismissal was erroneous because the complaint did not plainly show Chavez could not overcome qualified immunity; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether Chavez amended his complaint with his “Tort Claim with Damages” filing | Chavez: Filing responded to show-cause order and did not supersede the original complaint; Moore remains a defendant | District court: Construed the filing as an amended complaint omitting Moore | Court: Filing was a response to the show-cause order and not an amendment; Moore remains a party |
| Whether remand requires reassignment to a different judge | Chavez: Requested reassignment | — | Court: No unusual circumstances warrant reassignment; remand to same court |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (Fifth Amendment rights of probationers in treatment contexts)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishing qualified immunity standard)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (immunity from suit vs. defense to liability)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (distinguishing absolute immunity from qualified immunity)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts may dismiss sua sponte under § 1915 before service)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA and prisoner-pleading context)
- In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig., 716 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) (statutory-text-first approach to interpretation)
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for dismissing pro se complaints)
- Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980) (qualified immunity is a defense the defendant must plead)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (refusal to require plaintiffs to plead around immunity defenses)