Lacey v. Maricopa County
649 F.3d 1118
9th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Lacey, Jim Larkin, and Phoenix New Times allege the late-night arrests of the publishers and related investigations violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- Arpaio sought to prosecute the paper for publishing the sheriff’s personal information after articles about his land deals; Andrew Thomas appointed Wilenchik as special prosecutor due to conflicts of interest.
- Wilenchik issued subpoenas without grand jury approval or timely reporting, and later sought an Order to Show Cause against Plaintiffs for publishing those subpoenas.
- Lacey and Larkin were arrested at their home, booked, and held overnight; Thomas withdrew Wilenchik after public outcry; deputies and officials denied ordering the arrests.
- District court dismissed many federal claims on immunity grounds and remanded state-law claims; Ninth Circuit reversed in part and remanded for reconsideration, particularly regarding state-law claims and county liability.
- The court affirmed absolute immunity for Thomas and qualified immunity for Arpaio; Wilenchik’s qualified immunity was denied for First, Fourth, and malicious-prosecution claims but affirmed for equal-protection claim; case remanded for further proceedings on county liability and remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas’s immunity shield for appointing a special prosecutor | Thomas’s act of appointing Wilenchik is prosecutorial, not administrative; absolute immunity covers it. | Appointment is connected to prosecutorial function and protected by absolute immunity. | Thomas entitled to absolute immunity. |
| Wilenchik’s absolute immunity for subpoenas/arrests | Wilenchik ordered arrests and issued subpoenas without proper grand jury procedure, implicating prosecutorial acts. | Investigative acts may be immunized only if prosecutorial in nature; subpoenas/arrests may be investigatory. | Wilenchik not entitled to absolute immunity for ordering arrests; investigation actions may be prosecutorial and not shielded here. |
| Wilenchik's qualified immunity for First and Fourth Amendments and malicious prosecution | Arrests violated Fourth and chilled First Amendment rights; malicious-prosecution claim stated. | Qualified immunity should shield Wilenchik absent clearly established rights violations and lack of probable cause. | Not entitled to qualified immunity for First, Fourth, and malicious-prosecution claims; remains for further development; but qualified immunity upheld for Fourteenth selective-prosecution claim. |
| Arpaio’s qualified immunity for involvement in arrests | Arpaio personally involved or causally connected to constitutional deprivations; warrants greater scrutiny. | Plaintiffs failed to plead personal involvement or causal nexus with constitutional violations. | Arpaio granted qualified immunity on the claims against him; not personally liable at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity for acts intimately associated with the judicial process)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (absolute immunity for supervisory prosecutorial acts that require legal judgment)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity based on the nature of the act)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (limits absolute immunity for giving legal advice to police; distinguishes investigative acts)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts at hearings but not for legal advice to police)
- Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2005) (functional approach to determining whether actor is acting as prosecutor or investigator)