Detrice Garmon v. County of Los Angeles
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12381
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Garmon was an alibi witness in her son’s murder trial and had authorized Kaiser to disclose only medical records regarding a pituitary tumor because she faced imminent brain surgery.
- Deputy D.A. Michele Hanisee subpoenaed from Kaiser “any and all medical records” for Garmon, attaching an application that (incorrectly) described Garmon as the murder victim and invoked HIPAA authority; Kaiser produced all records without notifying Garmon.
- At trial Hanisee published Garmon’s unredacted medical records to impeach her; Garmon’s son was convicted.
- Garmon sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Hanisee, supervising D.A. Steve Cooley, the County of Los Angeles (the County Defendants), and Kaiser; the district court dismissed all federal claims against County Defendants with prejudice and dismissed Kaiser without prejudice.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed absolute prosecutorial immunity, municipal § 1983 liability, California statutory immunity (Cal. Gov’t Code § 821.6), and whether the district court should have allowed amendment and retained state claims against Kaiser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor has absolute immunity for issuing a subpoena for records | Garmon: immunity should not shield misconduct; subpoena obtained and used improperly | County: subpoena and related acts were prosecutorial and thus absolutely immune | Court: Issuing the subpoena (evidence-gathering for trial) is protected by absolute immunity |
| Whether prosecutor has absolute immunity for a declaration supporting the subpoena that contained false statements | Garmon: declaration is part of advocacy and should be protected | County: declaration is ancillary to subpoena and protected | Court: Declaration is not protected by absolute immunity (at most qualified immunity) because it functioned like a witness’s sworn factual certification |
| Whether supervising D.A. (Cooley) is entitled to absolute immunity for supervising Hanisee | Garmon: supervisory liability possible; immunity shouldn't extend to non-prosecutorial acts | County: supervisor entitled to same immunity as prosecutor | Held: Cooley is immune to the same extent as Hanisee (absolute where Hanisee had absolute immunity; not for the declaration) |
| Whether the County should have been allowed to be sued under § 1983 and whether leave to amend should have been denied | Garmon: complaint could support municipal theories (final policymaker, failure to train/supervise); she should get leave to amend (pro se) | County: complaint insufficient to show policy/custom; amendment would contradict operative complaint | Held: Complaint insufficient as pleaded but district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend; remand with leave to amend |
| Whether California Govt. Code § 821.6 shields County Defendants for these claims | County: § 821.6 immunizes prosecutorial acts, extending to these claims | Garmon: claims are not malicious-prosecution claims and thus not covered | Held: Section 821.6 should be read per California Supreme Court (Sullivan) as confined to malicious prosecution; dismissal on that basis was error |
| Whether Kaiser’s state-law claims were properly dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction | Garmon: Kaiser’s state claims should proceed if any federal claims survive | Kaiser: district court properly dismissed when federal claims were gone | Held: Because federal claims against County Defendants survive in part, dismissal of Kaiser’s state-law claims was improper; remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for functions ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase’)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (distinguishing prosecutorial advocacy from certifying factual statements under penalty of perjury)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (supervisory prosecutors immune to same extent as subordinate prosecutors for protected functions)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. en banc) (absolute immunity is narrow; side-stepping judicial process can preclude immunity)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires action pursuant to official policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (failure-to-train municipal liability standards)
- Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles, 527 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1974) (Cal. Gov’t Code § 821.6 construed as confined to malicious prosecution)