Wall v. Arend, 3:17-cv-05453

Background

Plaintiff Wall filed a civil complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction challenging conduct in his ongoing state criminal prosecution and asserting claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1506, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (RICO), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against judges, a prosecutor, and his court-appointed counsel.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Plaintiff sought an extension to respond, citing an unidentified hearing transcript.
The court denied the extension as untimely and not justified because the dismissal motion raised legal defects not cured by adding transcript evidence.
The court dismissed claims premised on 18 U.S.C. § 1506 and all claims against three judicial defendants on absolute judicial immunity grounds with prejudice.
§ 1983 claims against the prosecutor (Lund) and appointed counsel (Johnson), and claims against Defendant Stock, plus the RICO claim, were dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend where amendment might cure pleading defects.
The court explained Younger abstention limits federal interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings and warned that even viable damages claims could require staying the federal case pending resolution of state proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether private civil claim exists under 18 U.S.C. § 1506	Wall asserts § 1506 violations based on filings in state criminal case	Criminal statutes like § 1506 do not create a private right of action	Dismissed with prejudice — no private cause of action under § 1506
Whether judicial defendants are liable for actions in state criminal case	Wall alleges judges committed errors and admitted false evidence	Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts	Claims against Arend, Blinn, Cuthbertson dismissed with prejudice on judicial immunity grounds
Whether court-appointed counsel is liable under § 1983	Wall alleges abusive communications and inadequate representation by Johnson	Public defenders do not act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes absent conspiracy with state officials	§ 1983 claim against Johnson dismissed without prejudice; leave to amend to plead conspiracy allegations
Whether prosecutor can be sued under § 1983 for alleged false evidence	Wall alleges Lund submitted false affidavits denying self-representation and revoking bail	Prosecutors may be liable if they deliberately fabricate evidence and cause liberty deprivation; but pleading must allege deliberate fabrication and causation	§ 1983 claim against Lund dismissed without prejudice; leave to amend, but Younger abstention may bar relief or require stay
Whether RICO claim is adequately pleaded	Wall asserts civil RICO based on unspecified civil-rights violations and state-proceedings conduct	Defendants argue criminal statutes do not create private causes of action and allege failure to plead predicates and RICO injury to business or property	RICO claim dismissed without prejudice; court finds pleading deficient but possibly curable against non-immune defendants
Whether preliminary injunction/stay of state prosecution is permitted	Wall seeks injunction staying/dismissing state prosecution and other relief	Younger prohibits federal court interference in ongoing state criminal prosecutions	Motion for preliminary injunction denied; Younger bars injunctive relief interfering with ongoing state prosecution

Key Cases Cited

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (public defenders not acting under color of state law for § 1983)
Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914 (§ 1983 liability where private actor conspires with state officials)
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (deliberate fabrication of evidence violates due process)
Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789 (elements required to prove deliberate fabrication under § 1983)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts should not enjoin ongoing state criminal prosecutions)
Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (exceptions to interfering with state prosecutions are narrow)
Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (Younger principles apply to damages claims that would require resolving constitutional issues implicated in state proceedings)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard and treating material allegations as admitted)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)