Frederick Jackson v. Michael Barnes
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6962
9th Cir.2014Background
- Jackson was convicted of rape and first-degree murder in 1995; his first conviction relied on Miranda-violating statements by Barnes
- The first conviction was vacated in 2004 due to Miranda violation; on retrial the second conviction was secured without using illegally obtained evidence
- Jackson filed §1983 claims against Barnes, the Sheriff’s Department, and the Ventura County District Attorney for Miranda violation, departmental supervision, and prosecutorial conduct
- The district court granted summary judgment to Barnes, judgment on the pleadings to others, and dismissed the suit; the court of appeals reverses in part and remands
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barnes’ un-Mirandized questioning violated Jackson’s Fifth Amendment rights | Jackson | Barnes | Not Heck-barred; accrual occurred; potential nominal damages possible |
| Whether Jackson can recover damages for the Miranda violation | Jackson | Barnes/County | Damages may be possible; nominal damages required if liability established |
| Whether the Sheriff’s Department can be sued under Monell for a policy of inaction | Jackson | Brewster controls; no Monell claim | Stateable Monell inaction claim; county actor liability remains after Brewster |
| Whether the District Attorney’s Office is subject to §1983 liability or immune; whether leave to amend against Murphy should be granted | Jackson | Prosecutorial immunity; Office not liable; amendment possible | DA’s Office immune in most aspects; leave to amend against Murphy allowed; affirm dismissal of Office claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local governments liable for policies or customs)
- Brewster v. Shasta Cnty., 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2001) (sheriff is a county actor when investigating crime)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states are not liable as persons under §1983)
- Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2001) (non-derivative claims can survive Heck when conviction not tainted by challenged evidence)
- Poventud v. City of New York, — F.3d — (2d Cir. 2014) (en banc; favorable §1983 judgment would not invalidate a separate conviction)
- Smith v. Gonzales, 222 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (Brady violation claim not Heck-barred when second conviction insulated)
- Beets v. Cnty. of L.A., 669 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2012) ( Heck bar in certain §1983 claims clarified)
- Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (punitive damages may be awarded in §1983 actions)
- Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (statute of limitations for §1983 actions is state-law-based)
- Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 1995) (accrual under Heck for Fifth Amendment claim)