Khetani v. Orange County Probation
6:16-cv-00027
M.D. Fla.Jan 26, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Sudeep Khetani sued Orange County Probation, the Orlando Police Department, and the State Attorney of the Ninth Judicial Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations (false arrest/detention and malicious prosecution).
- Facts: a judgment related to a stalking matter was entered March 11, 2015; a probation-violation petition was filed and a warrant issued; Khetani was arrested April 20, 2015 and allegedly held without bond for 126 days.
- Khetani alleges there was no probable cause for the violation petition, arrest, or detention and asserts malicious prosecution/false imprisonment by the State Attorney’s Office.
- He filed an in forma pauperis application and a motion for appointment of counsel. The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Court took judicial notice of the state-court docket showing probable-cause finding at initial appearance, detention, and that Khetani later admitted the violation on August 25, 2015; the state case remains pending on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity of State Attorney's Office | State Attorney maliciously prosecuted and detained Khetani 126 days | State Attorney’s Office is an arm of the state and immune; individual prosecutors have absolute prosecutorial immunity | Dismissed with prejudice: office immune under Eleventh Amendment; prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity |
| Suability of Orlando Police Department | OPD falsely arrested Khetani without probable cause | OPD is an agent of the City of Orlando and not a separate legal entity | Dismissed: OPD not a suable legal entity |
| Liability of Orange County Probation (Monell theory) | Probation filed a baseless violation petition causing constitutional violation | County entity cannot be liable on respondeat superior; must show policy/custom causing violation | Dismissed without prejudice: complaint alleges only a single incident, insufficient to plead a custom or policy |
| Leave to amend / abstention given ongoing state proceedings | Khetani seeks damages; requested appointment of counsel and leave to proceed | Magistrate noted state-court proceedings provide forum and federal abstention likely; some defendants immune as a matter of law | Recommend deny leave to amend as to State Attorney (immunity) and dismiss other claims without prejudice; deny motions for IFP and counsel and close file |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions within role as advocate)
- Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (prosecutorial immunity principles applied in this circuit)
- Grech v. Clayton County, 335 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom causing constitutional injury)
- Cano-Diaz v. City of Leeds, 882 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (federal courts may abstain where parallel state proceedings allow vindication of federal rights)
- Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997) (§ 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis litigants)