Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lacey, Larkin, and the New Times sue Sheriff Arpaio, County Attorney Thomas, and Wilenchik along with MCSO and MCAO under §1983 and state claims.
- The district court dismissed federal claims and remanded state claims; this court reviews de novo for §1983 immunity and plausibility.
- New Times published articles critical of Arpaio; MCAO eventually declined to prosecute, while pressure mounted to pursue charges.
- Wilenchik, appointed as Independent Special Deputy, issued broad subpoenas and sought arrests; later, arrests of Lacey and Larkin occurred at their homes.
- Judge Baca found Wilenchik’s subpoenas to be ultra vires; later, Wilenchik’s conduct drew public and judicial scrutiny.
- The panel holds some claims against Wilenchik and Arpaio survive, Thomas may have absolute immunity for appointment decisions, and conspiracy claims may be amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilenchik is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity | Wilenchik violated First and Fourth Amendments and acted with retaliatory intent | Wilenchik acted within prosecutorial duties or administrative functions; immunity applies | Wilenchik not entitled to absolute immunity; may be liable; not entitled to qualified immunity on some claims |
| Whether Arpaio is entitled to qualified immunity on §1983 claims | Arpaio empowered, directed, and cooperated with the arrest and selective enforcement | Arpaio acted within official capacity; qualified immunity applies unless clearly established violation | Arpaio not entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and selective enforcement claims |
| Whether Thomas is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity | Thomas’s appointment of Wilenchik was improper and outside prosecutorial function | Appointment of a special prosecutor is prosecutorial and insulated by absolute immunity | Thomas entitled to absolute immunity for appointment of Wilenchik; conspiracy claim against Thomas may be amended |
| Whether Lacey's conspiracy claim against Wilenchik, Arpaio, and Thomas is viable | There was a meeting of the minds to harass and prosecute the New Times | Immunity and lack of concrete post-appointment conspiratorial actions defeat the claim | Conspiracy claim viable against Wilenchik and Arpaio; leave to amend conspiracy claim against Thomas granted |
| Whether federal racketeering claims were properly dismissed | Defendants committed predicate acts forming RICO conspiracy | No pleaded predicate acts; claims fail as a matter of law | District court’s dismissal affirmed; no viable RICO predicates shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity for acts in initiating and presenting the case)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (line between prosecutorial duties and administrative actions for immunity purposes)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (immunity extends to prosecutors’ advocacy; not to non-judicial actions like giving police legal advice)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (protects prosecutorial functions; distinguishes advocacy from administrative tasks)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012) (implicates grand jury subpoena activities and immunity scope; prefatory context used in analysis)
- Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective prosecution requires similarly situated comparators and neutral factors)