West v. City of Mesa
128 F. Supp. 3d 1233
D. Ariz.2015Background
- Carl West was convicted in 2003 for conspiracy to commit armed robbery after investigation by FBI Special Agent Joe Gordwin and Mesa Detective Jeffrey Jacobs (task force members); West later obtained post-conviction relief and was released in 2011; charges were dropped in 2013.
- West filed consolidated federal claims alleging: §1983 abuse of process, Bivens (constitutional) claim, §1983 malicious prosecution, state-law malicious prosecution (FTCA claim against the U.S.), and 42 U.S.C. §1985 conspiracy against multiple defendants including Gordwin, Jacobs, Van Norman, Smith, and the United States.
- The court previously dismissed or limited some claims; the present order resolves motions by Gordwin (to dismiss and for summary judgment), Van Norman & Smith (to dismiss), and Jacobs & the United States (for summary judgment and to strike West’s expert report).
- Court disposition: grant in part and deny in part Gordwin’s motion to dismiss (Bivens and state malicious prosecution survive; abuse of process, §1983 malicious prosecution, and §1985 dismissed), deny Gordwin’s summary judgment, grant Van Norman & Smith’s dismissal (supervisory claims fail), grant Jacobs & U.S. summary judgment on Bivens and FTCA malicious prosecution claims, and grant motion to strike West’s expert report as untimely and noncompliant with Rule 26.
- Key factual background supporting probable cause: wiretaps, cooperating informant (CI), witness Hrbal’s identifications, car-wash victim photo ID, surveillance, and some inculpatory statements by West; Gordwin was later indicted for unrelated misconduct (2008) that led to post-conviction relief for West but the indictment did not allege misconduct in the original warehouse investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether West pleaded §1983 abuse of process against Gordwin | Gordwin used process to procure conviction via false testimony and improper motives | Allegations do not show use of judicial process for improper purpose and are time-barred | Dismissed — West failed to plead improper purpose and prior rulings support dismissal |
| Whether Bivens claim against Gordwin survives motion to dismiss | Gordwin, a federal actor, conspired to procure West’s prosecution and used false testimony; thus constitutional violation alleged | Gordwin argued §1983 inapplicable to federal actors (misplaced) | Survives — complaint plausibly alleges Bivens malicious-prosecution claim against Gordwin |
| Whether §1983 malicious prosecution claim can proceed against Gordwin | West alleges malicious prosecution by false evidence | Federal actors can be liable under §1983 only if acting with state actors; claim duplicates Bivens | Dismissed — legally inconsistent to allow both §1983 and Bivens against same federal actors; no state-actor conspiracy alleged |
| Whether supervisory liability claims against Van Norman & Smith survive | They approved cooperation/payments and supervised Jacobs | Only supervisory allegations; no personal involvement alleged; Bivens/§1983 require individual action | Dismissed — mere supervisory liability insufficient; Bivens/§1983 require direct personal acts |
| Whether Jacobs (Bivens) and U.S. (FTCA) are entitled to summary judgment on malicious prosecution | West contends Jacobs coerced witnesses, relied on romantically involved informants, paid witnesses, and that indictment was tainted | Defendants show wiretaps, corroborated CI and witness IDs, no evidence of coercion, payment for testimony not proven false, grand jury indictment prima facie probable cause | Granted — West failed to rebut probable cause presumption or show malice; FTCA malicious-prosecution fails additionally because state-court dismissal was procedural (not favorable termination) |
| Whether West’s expert report should be excluded | West submitted rebuttal expert late; report lacks opinions, analysis, and is mostly questions/notes | Untimely and noncompliant with Rule 26 report requirements | Stricken — untimely and fails Rule 26(a)(2)(B) content requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary-judgment burden and standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and jury-standard for summary judgment)
- Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) (malicious-prosecution liability may extend to officers who wrongfully caused prosecution)
- Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1994) (probable cause standard under totality of circumstances)
- Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (indictment tainted by government misconduct does not preclude claims against officials)
- Morgan v. United States, 323 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2003) (Bivens pleading requires allegation of constitutional violation by federal agents)
- Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2001) (§1983 liability for federal actors requires conspiracy or joint action with state actors)