J. N. v. Heather M. Hendrickson et al

Filing 51

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ANNE MARIE SCHUBERTS MOTION TO DISMISS 40 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Because the Court finds that Defendant Schubert is protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity for the actions the Third Amended Complaint alleges Sc hubert did that resulted in Plaintiffs harm, the Court does not resolve the time bar issue. For the reasons stated above, Defendant Schubert's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice.(SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) Terminating Anne Marie Schubert. (vv) Modified on 9/22/2015 (vv).

1
2

O

3
4
5

NO JS-6

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

J.N.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

v.
DETECTIVE HEATHER M.
HENDRICKSON #429; ANNE MARIE
SCHUBERT; RICK BRAZIEL;
DETECTIVE J. LEROSE #773;
SGT. DUBKE; SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF
SACRAMENTO; TEN UNKNOWN
NAMED DEFENDANTS

18
19

Defendants.

20

___________________________

21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-02428 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ANNE
MARIE SCHUBERT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
[Dkt. No. 40]

Presently before the Court is Defendant Anne Marie Schubert’s

22

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

23

arguments and considered the parties’ submissions, the Court adopts

24

the following order.

25

I.

26

Having heard oral

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff J.N. brought a § 1983 action against various members

27

of the Sacramento Police Department (“SPD”), the SPD, the City of

28

Sacramento, unknown named defendants (“Does”), and Defendant Anne

1

Marie Schubert (“Schubert”), who is a Deputy District Attorney for

2

the County of Sacramento.

3

contends that Defendants’ investigation, arrest, and prosecution of

4

him was malicious and not supported by probable cause.

5

2-3; 33-34; 41-45.)

6

evidence and suppressed exculpatory evidence during the

7

prosecution.

8
9

(Third Am. Compl. at 3-5.)

Plaintiff

(See id. at

He further contends that Defendants fabricated

(See id. at 3; 33-34; 41-45.)

Plaintiff originally filed his complaint on March 31, 2014.
(Dkt. No. 1.)

By the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff filed his

10

Third Amended Complaint on March 15, 2015, in which he added

11

Defendant Schubert.

12

Schubert has now filed a Motion to Dismiss.

13

II.

14

(See Dkt. No. 29, Third Am. Compl.)

Defendant

(Dkt. No. 40.)

LEGAL STANDARD
A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss requires a court to determine the

15

sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint and whether it contains a

16

“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

17

entitled to relief.”

18

12(b)(6), a court must (1) construe the complaint in the light most

19

favorable to the plaintiff, and (2) accept all well-pleaded factual

20

allegations as true, as well as all reasonable inferences to be

21

drawn from them.

22

979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended on denial of reh’g, 275 F.3d 1187

23

(9th Cir. 2001); Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

24

1998).

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Under Rule

See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d

In order to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the

26

complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

27

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

28

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
2

1

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

2

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

3

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

4

678.

5

legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal

6

theory.”

7

1104 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-63

8

(dismissal for failure to state a claim does not require the

9

appearance, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff can prove “no set of

10

However,

Id. at

Dismissal is proper if the complaint “lacks a cognizable

Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097,

facts” in support of its claim that would entitle it to relief).

11

A complaint does not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked

12

assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”

13

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

14

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

15

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

16

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

17

need not accept as true “legal conclusions merely because they are

18

cast in the form of factual allegations.”

19

Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

III. DISCUSSION

21

Iqbal, 556

“A claim has

Id.

The Court

Warren v. Fox Family

Defendant Schubert has filed a Motion to Dismiss based on two

22

grounds: first, that she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial

23

immunity; and second, that the claims against her are time barred.

24

(Def. Mot. Dismiss at 1.)

25

A.

Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity

26

Defendant Schubert argues that any allegation against her in

27

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, such as signing an arrest

28

warrant declaration, “relates to her actions as a Deputy District
3

1

Attorney involved in preparing to prosecute and/or the actual

2

prosecution of Plaintiff for various criminal violations,” for

3

which Defendant is immune.

4

argues that Defendant Schubert is not protected by absolute

5

immunity “because Ms. Schubert was performing the function of a

6

‘complaining witness,’ . . . when she signed the arrest warrant

7

declaration,” relying on Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 131

8

(1997).

9

Defendant Schubert responds that Kalina does not support

(Def.’s Mot. Dismiss at 3.)

Plaintiff

(Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Dismiss at 3 (citation omitted).)

10

Plaintiff’s argument because “Plaintiff does not allege or offer

11

any evidence that Schubert authored a similar type of document as

12

that of the prosecutor in Kalina or that Schubert personally

13

vouched for the information provided in the attached report

14

authored by Detective Hendrickson.”

15

Mot. Dismiss at 4.)

16

(Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n

Courts take a functional approach to analyzing a prosecutor’s

17

claim of absolute immunity.

18

nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who

19

performed it.”

20

citation omitted).

21

the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the

22

function in question.

23

(1993).

24

Immunity decisions are based on “the

Kalina, 522 U.S. at 127 (internal quotations and
The official seeking absolute immunity bears

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages

25

liability for “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the

26

State’s case.”

27

However, “[a] prosecutor’s administrative duties and those

28

investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate’s

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976).

4

1

preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial

2

proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity.” Buckley, 509

3

U.S. at 273.

4

performing investigatory as opposed to advocacy functions.

5

Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Nash-Holmes, 169 F.3d 636 (9th Cir.

6

1999).

7

Prosecutors are accorded only qualified immunity when
See

In the present case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schubert

8

is not immune for her conduct in executing and presenting to the

9

Superior Court of California a declaration in support of an arrest

10

warrant.

11

Complaint does not attach the declaration, but Plaintiff states

12

that in the declaration, Schubert

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

(Third Amended Compl. ¶¶ 69-70.)

The Third Amended

declared under penalty of perjury that pursuant to her
employment as a Deputy District Attorney for the County of
Sacramento she has “been assigned to investigate
allegations that [plaintiff J.N.] did commit the crime(s)
as set forth in the attached complaint” and that she had
contacted persons having knowledge of said offenses and who
prepared written reports and/or statements, and/or had
received and read written reports and/or statements
prepared by others known to her to be law enforcement
officers, all of which reports and/or statements are
included in a report consisting of 6 pages attached to the
declaration as Exhibit I and incorporated by reference
thereto.

20

(Third Am. Compl. ¶ 69.)

21

Schubert’s declaration was written by Defendant Hendrickson, an SPD

22

detective.

23

Plaintiff alleges contained false statements and

24

misrepresentations, as well as omitted exculpatory information.

25

(Id. ¶¶ 71-73.)

26

the report, “there would not have been adequate evidence to support

27

probable cause for issuance of the arrest warrant or search

28

warrant.”

(Id. ¶ 71.)

The six-page report attached to

The six-page report is the document that

Plaintiff alleges that but for these problems with

(Id. ¶ 74.)

Plaintiff relies on Kalina to show
5

1

Defendant Schubert is not entitled to immunity because Schubert

2

attached the false report to her sworn declaration.

3

Mot. Dismiss at 3.)

4

(Pl.’s Opp’n

In Kalina, the Court concluded that a prosecutor who completed

5

a “Certificate for Determination of Probable Cause” in conjunction

6

with an arrest warrant had engaged in “the evidentiary component of

7

an application for an arrest warrant” and therefore had acted as a

8

witness.

9

certified under penalty of perjury to the truth of the factual

10

Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129, 131.

The prosecutor there had

matters alleged to support probable cause.

11

Id. at 130-31.

Here, Defendant Schubert attached a six-page report with

12

factual statements written and sworn by Detective Hendrickson to

13

Schubert’s own sworn declaration.

14

25.)

15

witness in executing her arrest warrant declaration.

16

not “personally attest[] to the truth of the averments,” see

17

Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129, in Hendrickson’s report.

18

Schubert stated under penalty of perjury that she had “contacted

19

persons having knowledge of said offenses and who prepared written

20

reports and/or statements, and/or had received and read reports

21

and/or statements prepared by others known by her to be law

22

enforcement officers.”

23

persons were the ones attesting to the truth of the report alleged

24

by Plaintiff to have violated his rights.

25

statements are those of an advocate and not a witness, Schubert is

26

entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for her actions as

27

alleged in the Third Amended Complaint.

28

///

(See Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22-23,

But there is nothing to indicate that Schubert acted as a

Instead,

(Third Amended Compl. ¶ 69.)

6

Schubert did

These other

Thus, because Schubert’s

1

B.

Statute of Limitations

2

Defendant Schubert alleges that Plaintiff’s adding her to the

3

case for the first time in the Third Amended Complaint is time

4

barred because the amendment does not relate back to the filing of

5

the first complaint.

6

that the claim does relate back because the initial complaint

7

alleged harms — such as the arrest warrant’s issuance — done by Doe

8

defendants, and that the amendment merely added Schubert as a

9

former Doe defendant.

10

(Def.’s Mot. Dismiss at 4.)

Plaintiff argues

(Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Dismiss at 5.)

Because the Court finds that Defendant Schubert is protected

11

by absolute prosecutorial immunity for the actions the Third

12

Amended Complaint alleges Schubert did that resulted in Plaintiff’s

13

harm, the Court does not resolve the time bar issue.

14

IV.

15
16

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Schubert’s Motion to

Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: September 22, 2015

22
HON. DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
7