Donahoe v. Arpaio, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49236

Background

Consolidated civil rights and state-law claims arising from tensions between Maricopa County Sheriff/Attorney offices and County Board members, staff, and judges over Court Tower project and investigations.
Plaintiffs Wilcox, Mundell, Donahoe, Schuerman, Wilson, and Stapley allege retaliatory investigations, indictments, and publicity by Defendants including Arpaio, Thomas, Aubuchon, Hendershott, Spaw, and county officials.
Allegations include eliciting criminal investigations, surveillance, press releases, and misused legal processes to harass and discredit plaintiffs for political and professional disagreements.
Plaintiffs assert federal RICO action underlying the cases and numerous state-law claims: wrongful institution of civil proceedings, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false light, defamation, intrusion, and racketeering under Arizona law.
Several counts are alleged against multiple defendants in varying capacities (prosecutors, judges, county officials) with asserted immunity defenses and arguments on whether conduct was prosecutorial/advocacy vs. investigative.
The court granted in part and denied in part the various Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8 challenges, dismissing some counts (e.g., certain false light, some racketeering and constitutional claims) while allowing others to proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether filing the federal RICO action is absolutely immune	Plaintiffs contend filing the RICO suit is non-immune conduct for a civil action.	Defendants argue filing the civil RICO action is within prosecutorial immunity.	Absolute immunity does not apply to filing the civil RICO action; claims survive based on non-immune conduct.
Whether malicious prosecution claims are barred by immunity	Plaintiffs allege non-immune investigative/advisory actions by officials support malicious prosecution claims.	Defendants contend prosecutorial immunity bars these claims where rooted in criminal proceedings.	Non-immune investigative/advisory conduct can sustain claims; some counts remain viable with immunity not fully shielding actions.
Whether false light and defamation claims against public officials survive	Plaintiffs allege public officials published false or misleading statements harming reputations.	Defendants argue absolute privilege or First Amendment defenses bar these claims for statements made in official capacity.	Some defamation/false light claims survive to proceed, while Mundell/Donahoe/Wilson false light claims are dismissed; Schuerman false light survives.
Whether Fourth Amendment and related claims for unlawful search/arrest survive	Plaintiffs allege warrants/arrests lacked probable cause and were retaliatory.	Defendants argue qualified/absolute immunity and lack of state-law bases for some claims.	Schuerman and Stapley Fourth Amendment claims denied or allowed based on particular pleadings; some claims survive a Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
Whether Arizona racketeering claims fail for lack of financial-gain nexus	Motions rely on RICO-like state statute to use alleged political actions as racketeering.	Defendants contend predicate acts were not done for financial gain and lack continuity.	Arizona racketeering counts dismissed for failure to allege acts were committed for financial gain.

Key Cases Cited

Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1991) (limits extension of absolute immunity to non-prosecutorial functions)
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (prosecutorial immunity limits for administrative/agency functions)
Canell v. Gammick, 413 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2005) (no absolute immunity for non-prosecutorial acts by government attorneys)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (distinguishes prosecutorial vs. investigative functions for immunity)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (prosecutor's role and probable cause affect immunity scope)
Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653 (2d Cir. 1995) (denying immunity where boundary between prosecutorial/investigative actions is unclear on motion to dismiss)
Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2005) (delineates prosecutorial vs. investigative roles in immunity analysis)
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2009) (probable-cause/immunity distinctions in prosecutorial actions)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute immunity for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal process)
Frey v. Stoneman, 150 Ariz. 106 (Ariz. 1986) (voluntary dismissal can be a favorable termination for wrongful institution claims)
KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (warranting discussion of probable cause and Fourth Amendment issues in searches)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for defamation by public figures)
Flowers v. Carville, 310 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) (statements of hyperbole not actionable as defamation)