Gwendolyn Hall v. Katherine Kinsey
2:16-cv-07751
| C.D. Cal. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Gwendolyn Hall was convicted in 2015 by a Los Angeles County jury of making criminal threats and sentenced to time served plus three years’ formal probation.
- Hall filed a direct appeal (Case No. B269163) that remains pending.
- On October 18, 2016 Hall filed a § 1983 civil-rights complaint naming: her criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, a court reporter, a nurse, and State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Katherine Kinsey.
- Hall alleges she was framed, claims ineffective assistance/conspiracy by counsel, and seeks to “hold them accountable.”
- The magistrate judge concluded many claims appear barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success would imply invalidity of the conviction, and that the claim against Kinsey appears barred by Eleventh Amendment/quasi-judicial and prosecutorial immunity.
- Court ordered Hall to show cause by December 2, 2016 why the court should not recommend dismissal without prejudice under Heck as to all defendants except Kinsey, and dismissal with prejudice as to Kinsey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are § 1983 claims challenging detention/conviction barred by Heck? | Hall asserts constitutional violations tied to her arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing (framing, ineffective counsel). | Defendants rely on Heck: relief would invalidate the conviction while appeal is pending. | Court: Heck bars these claims until conviction is invalidated; recommends dismissal without prejudice. |
| Can claims of ineffective assistance/conspiracy against trial/appellate counsel proceed now? | Hall alleges counsel ineffective/conspired to frame her. | Defendants invoke Heck and precedent that such claims are barred until conviction is overturned. | Court: Such claims are barred by Heck; dismissal without prejudice appropriate. |
| Is the suit against State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Kinsey barred by Eleventh Amendment or immunity? | Hall sues Kinsey in connection with State Bar representation/actions. | Kinsey is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity (state entity), quasi-judicial immunity, and prosecutorial immunity for charging/presentation decisions. | Court: Claim against Kinsey appears barred; recommends dismissal with prejudice. |
| May the court entertain prospective injunctive relief against the State Bar attorney? | Hall did not seek prospective injunctive relief. | N/A (not pleaded). | Court notes no prospective relief claimed; Eleventh Amendment still bars monetary relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (a § 1983 plaintiff cannot recover damages for conviction or sentence invalidity absent prior reversal or similar relief)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors immune from civil suits for actions intimately associated with initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions)
- Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of California, 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment and quasi-judicial immunity bar suit against State Bar and its trial counsel)
- Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 1995) (Heck precludes ineffective-assistance claims in § 1983 until conviction invalidated)
- Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) (Heck bars claims that would undermine validity of conviction)
- Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck bars false arrest/imprisonment claims until conviction invalidated)