Thomas Goldstein v. City of Long Beach
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9333
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Goldstein spent 24 years imprisoned for murder largely based on jailhouse informant Fink’s perjured testimony; DA’s office allegedly knew of Fink’s history but did not disclose it; Goldstein claimed failure to maintain a system for tracking impeachment information and to train DAs to disseminate it.
- The district court held, following Weiner and McMillian, that the DA acted as a state official in setting policy; the Ninth Circuit reverses, concluding the DA acted as a county policymaker for administrative policies related to jailhouse informants.
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (Supreme Court) recognized absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts, but remand prompted reconsideration of state vs. local policymaking for administrative policies.
- California provisions place DAs as county officers, with supervision by the Board of Supervisors; the Attorney General’s supervision is limited to reporting and coordination, not statewide policy control.
- The majority holds that the challenged administrative policies and training regarding jailhouse informants are local (county) policies, and a §1983 claim lies against the County of Los Angeles, not the DA personally.
- Concluding, the panel reverses the district court’s judgment on the pleadings and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DA acted as state or county policymaker for policy/training on jailhouse informants | Goldstein/PL: DA acted as county policymaker for administrative policies and training. | LA County: DA acted as state official for prosecutorial and statewide policy matters. | County policymaker for administrative policies; §1983 claim viable against county. |
| Relation to Pitts v. Kern’s reasoning on state vs county actor | Pitts supports DA representing state for policy training. | Pitts applies, but is distinguishable; analysis should be function-specific. | Pitts not controlling for the administrative policy at issue; county actor conclusion upheld. |
| Role of California constitutional/statutory framework in state vs local characterization | California law shows DA as county officer for administration. | Attorney General and state law could exert some control, but not statewide policy. | DA represents county for administrative policy/training; county liable. |
| Impact of Attorney General and Board of Supervisors supervision on policy determination | AG/Board control might shift DA to state actor. | AG/Board control is limited and does not negate county role in administration. | AG/Board supervision insufficient to make DA a state policymaker for the challenged policies. |
| Whether the case Mix aligns with McMillian’s final policymaker inquiry | Functional/state vs local inquiry governs outcome; DA local for admin policies. | McMillian supports analysis but context differs; here California structure favors county. | Policy/training regarding jailhouse informants treated as county policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., 520 U.S. 781 (1997) (state vs local policymaker analysis for county officials)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (immunity and policy-related claims in prosecutorial context)
- Weiner v. San Diego Cnty., 210 F.3d 1025 (2000) (district attorney acts for state in prosecution, but not for all purposes)
- Pitts v. County of Kern, 17 Cal.4th 340 (1998) (district attorney represents state for prosecution and policy training in Pitts manner)