Farrow et al v. Lipetzky
Filing
47
ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 6 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing complaint with leave to amend. (jcslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
JOHN FARROW, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
8
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ROBIN LIPETZKY,
10
11
Case No. 12-cv-06495-JCS
Defendant.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs John Farrow (“Farrow”) and Jerome Wade (“Wade”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
12
13
brought this putative class action against Defendant Robin Lipetzky, in her official capacity as the
14
Contra Costa County Public Defender (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs allege causes of action (1) under
15
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (a) violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
16
(b) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) under the Unruh
17
Act for violation of their statutory speedy trial rights; and (3) for violation of California
18
Government Code § 27706. Presently before the Court is Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss the
19
Complaint (“Motion”). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This Motion raises two related questions. First, does the failure to
21
provide counsel at an initial appearance (at which the only events that occur are the provision of a
22
copy of the charges to the defendant, the inquiry as to whether the defendant desires appointed
23
counsel, and the continuance of the matter to allow for appointment of counsel) violate the Sixth
24
Amendment guarantee of counsel in a criminal case? Second, where the matter is continued for 5
25
to 13 days, at which time counsel appears with the defendant, does the delay in appointment of
26
counsel violate the Sixth Amendment? Because the Court answers both questions in the negative,
27
the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
28
//
1
2
II.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The standard for judicial notice is set forth in Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
3
which allows a court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact not subject to “reasonable
4
dispute,” either because it is “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court”
5
or it is “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
6
reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201. As a general rule, the court “may not consider any
7
material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” U.S. v. Corinthian Colleges,
8
655 F.3d 984, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th
9
Cir. 2001)). However, the court may “consider materials that are submitted with and attached to
the Complaint.” Id. at 999. The court “may also consider unattached evidence on which the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
complaint „necessarily relies‟ if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is
12
central to plaintiff‟s claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the document.” Id. at 999
13
(citing Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition, the court may take
14
judicial notice of “matters of public record,” but not facts that may be “subject to reasonable
15
dispute.” Id. (citing Lee, 250 F.3d at 689).
16
Defendant seeks judicial notice of two facts on the basis of five public records.
17
Defendant‟s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), 1-2; Corrected Declaration of D. Cameron
18
Baker in Support of Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss (“Baker Declaration”), Exs. A-E. The five
19
public records are: (1) the “AB 109 Operations Plan for Contra Costa County as Approved and
20
Adopted by the Executive Committee of the Contra Costa County Community Corrections
21
Partnership Adopted November 9, 2012;” (2) a Position Adjustment Request from the official files
22
of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for funding for two full-time Deputy Public
23
Defender Positions and one full-time Paralegal Position, signed with Board approval on January
24
15, 2013; (3) an order dated January 15, 2013 approving the “2012/13 AB 109 Criminal Justice
25
Realignment Implementation Plan” from the official records of the Contra Costa County Board of
26
Supervisors; (4) an affidavit, from the Contra Costa County Office of the Public Defender in the
27
matter entitled People v. Farrow, Contra Costa County Superior Court No. 01-15531-7, in which
28
Christopher Martin is appointed to represent John Howard Farrow; and (5) a minute order dated
2
1
November 21, 2011 from the Contra Costa Superior Court file entitled People v. Wade, Case No.
2
5-121217-4, stating that Jerome Edward Wade appeared with his attorney “Martin.” Baker
3
Declaration, ¶¶ 3-7, Exs. A-E. The two facts are: (1) Defendant now “has funding to have
4
attorneys present at the initial court appearance for criminal defendants;” and (2) that “Christopher
5
Martin, one of Plaintiffs‟ attorneys in this case, was counsel of record for both Plaintiffs in their
6
underlying criminal proceedings.” RJN, 1.
Plaintiffs oppose judicial notice. Plaintiffs‟ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
7
8
(“Opposition”), 7-9. In particular, Plaintiffs contest whether the apparent acquisition of funding
9
for two additional public defender positions is sufficient to provide representation of indigent
defendants in misdemeanor and felony cases at three courthouses in Contra Costa County. Id. at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
8. The Court takes judicial notice of the five documents as public records. The Court cannot take
12
judicial notice of the inference that Defendant now has adequate funding to have attorneys present
13
at the initial court appearance for all criminal defendants. Although the noticed documents
14
indicate that Defendant has obtained funding for two Deputy Public Defender positions and one
15
Paralegal position to “[p]rovide for early representation of arrestees at the first Court appearance,”
16
whether that funding is adequate is subject to reasonable dispute. As to whether Plaintiffs‟
17
counsel also represented them in their criminal proceedings, neither party has made any argument
18
relying on that asserted fact and the Court does not rely on it in resolving this Motion.
19
III.
BACKGROUND
20
A.
Complaint
21
Plaintiffs allege that indigent, in-custody criminal defendants in Contra Costa County are
22
customarily left in jail without counsel for 5 to 13 days after their first court appearance.
23
Complaint, ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege that, in the first court appearance, which is “dubbed
24
„arraignment,‟” no plea is taken, bail is not examined, and counsel is not appointed. Id. at ¶ 2.
25
Plaintiffs allege that this is a result of Defendant‟s policy:
26
27
28
At the first court appearance (arraignment) when given a copy of the charges – or when
questioned in police custody before arrest or charges are brought – a person may request
representation by an attorney. At the arraignment or first appearance, persons out of
3
custody will be referred to our office and given a date to return to court with an attorney.
Persons in custody will be given a court date and will be visited at the jail by staff from the
Department before the next court date.
1
2
3
Id. at ¶ 3-4, Ex. A. Plaintiffs allege that referral to a public defender at the first court appearance
4
results in an automatic continuance, customarily between 5 and 13 days, for “further arraignment.”
5
Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6. Plaintiffs allege that this delays the activation of their state statutory speedy trial
6
rights, because those rights run from the entry of plea. Id. at ¶ 7.
Plaintiffs allege that Farrow was arrested on August 30, 2012. Id. at ¶ 29. Thereafter,
7
8
Farrow appeared alone in court for his arraignment on September 2, 2012. Id. at ¶ 30. The court
9
asked Farrow if he could afford counsel, and Farrow replied that he could not. Id. at ¶ 31. The
court asked Farrow if he wanted the court to appoint counsel, and Farrow said that he did. Id. The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
court then referred the matter to the Public Defender and continued the matter to September 15,
12
2012 for “further arraignment” without advising Farrow of his right to bail or his right to a speedy
13
preliminary hearing and trial. Id. Farrow remained in jail without examination of bail, legal
14
representation, or statutory speedy trial rights until the “further arraignment,” at which counsel
15
was appointed and Farrow entered his plea. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32.
16
Plaintiffs allege that Wade was arrested on November 8, 2012.1 Id. at ¶ 33. Wade
17
appeared at court alone for his arraignment on November 14, 2011. Id. at ¶ 34. The court asked
18
Wade if he could afford counsel, and he replied that he could not. Id. at ¶ 35. The court asked
19
Wade if he wanted the court to appoint counsel, and Wade replied that he did. Id. The court
20
referred the matter to the Public Defender and continued the matter to November 21, 2011 for
21
“further arraignment” without advising Wade of his right to bail or his right to a speedy
22
preliminary hearing and trial. Id. Wade remained in jail without examination of bail, the
23
protection of the statutory speedy trial rights, or legal representation until the “further
24
arraignment,” at which counsel was appointed and Wade entered his plea. Id. at ¶¶ 35-36.
Plaintiffs allege that Farrow and Wade represent a class of indigent, in-custody criminal
25
26
defendants in Contra Costa County that asked for appointment of the Public Defender, suffered an
27
28
1
Consistent with the remainder of the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiffs intended to allege that Wade was arrested
on November 8, 2011.
4
1
automatic continuance of between 5 and 13 days as a consequence of asserting their right to
2
appointed counsel without any knowledge of their bail rights or statutory speedy trial rights, were
3
deprived of counsel between 5 and 13 days, and were deprived of their statutory speedy trial rights
4
and their right to a prompt bail hearing during the 5 to 13 day period. Id. at ¶ 41. Plaintiffs further
5
allege that the putative class was deprived of said rights pursuant to the Public Defender‟s written
6
policy, that the Public Defender maintains written records with regard to each Plaintiff, and that
7
the Public Defender knew that the actions alleged in the Complaint violated state and federal law
8
when she committed said actions. Id.
9
10
Plaintiffs allege six causes of action:
(1)
Violation of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: Plaintiffs allege that
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Defendant‟s failure to represent Plaintiffs at their first appearance, or a reasonable time thereafter,
12
violated their Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of court appointed counsel. Id. at ¶ 47.
13
Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because
14
Defendant‟s actions, taken under the color of law, directly and proximately damaged them. Id.
15
(2)
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution – Substantive Due
16
Process with Respect to Statutory Speedy Trial Rights: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant‟s conduct
17
amounted to deliberate indifference and resulted in denial of Plaintiffs‟ statutory speedy trial rights
18
without a hearing to determine the cause and reasonableness of the denial in violation of the
19
Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at ¶ 50. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover damages
20
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Defendant‟s actions, taken under the color of law, directly
21
and proximately damaged them. Id.
22
(3)
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution – Procedural Due
23
Process with Respect to Statutory Speedy Trial Rights: Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in their
24
second cause of action. Id. at ¶ 53.
25
(4)
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment – Procedural Due Process with Respect to
26
Application for Bail or Release on Own Recognizance: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant‟s
27
deliberate indifference caused them to be denied their right to a prompt bail hearing. Id. at ¶ 56.
28
Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because
5
1
2
Defendant‟s actions, taken under the color of law, directly and proximately damaged them. Id.
(5)
Violation of California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1: Plaintiffs allege that
3
Defendant‟s conduct forced them to sacrifice their statutory speedy trial rights as a precondition to
4
the appointment of counsel, directly and proximately causing them damage. Id. at ¶ 59. Plaintiffs
5
allege that they are entitled to statutory and other damages for these violations under the Unruh
6
Act. Id.
7
(6)
Writ of Mandate to Enforce California Government Code § 27706: Plaintiffs
8
allege that Defendant‟s practices violate California Government Code § 27706, which states that
9
the public defender shall represent criminal defendants at all stages of the proceedings. Id. at ¶ 62.
Plaintiffs allege that they are directly damaged by those policies. Id. Therefore, they seek a writ
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
of mandate compelling the Public Defender to comply with her statutory obligation to represent all
12
indigent, in-custody defendants by appearing at their first appearance or at a reasonable time
13
thereafter. Id.
14
B.
The Motion to Dismiss
15
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs‟ federal claims are meritless as a matter of law even
16
accepting Plaintiffs‟ factual allegations as true. Motion, 5. Defendant states that the first step in
17
analyzing a Sixth Amendment claim is assessing whether the right to counsel has attached. Id.
18
(citing Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas, 554 U.S. 191, 211-12, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d
19
366 (2008)). Defendant contends that, once the right to counsel has attached, the court must
20
determine if the absence of counsel at a subsequent event harmed the criminal defendant. Id.
21
(citing Rothgery, 554 U.S. at 211-12, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366). Defendant notes that
22
prejudice is presumed where counsel is absent at a subsequent “critical stage.” Id. (citing McNeal
23
v. Adams, 623 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 2010)). Defendant argues that there has been no Sixth
24
Amendment violation because the right to counsel attached at the initial court appearance and
25
there has been no subsequent event at which counsel is not present. Id. at 5-6. Defendant asserts
26
that the Sixth Amendment inquiry is focused on whether a defendant was deprived of counsel at a
27
critical stage, not the amount of time it takes to appoint counsel. Id. at 7. Defendant contends that
28
the initial court appearance was not a critical stage. Id. at 6-7 (citing United States v. Perez, 776
6
1
2
F.2d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1232-33 (9th Cir. 2009)).
Second, Defendant attacks both of Plaintiffs‟ Fourteenth Amendment claims concerning
3
their “statutory speedy trial rights.” Id. at 7-9. Defendant states that the asserted speedy trial
4
rights, provided in state court, derive from California Penal Code §§ 1049.5 and 1382. Id. at 7-8.
5
Defendant contends that, for a Fourteenth Amendment claim to lie, the state statutes must mandate
6
a particular substantive outcome. Id. at 8 (citing Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 872-875 (9th
7
Cir. 2009), cert. denied, Carver v. Vail, 558 U.S. 466, 130 S.Ct. 466, 175 L.Ed.2d 313 (2009)).
8
However, Defendant argues that the Court does not need to resolve whether these statutes mandate
9
a particular substantive outcome because Plaintiffs cannot show a violation of the speedy trial
statutes. Id. This is because, Defendant argues, the speedy trial rights do not attach until
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
arraignment. Id. Defendant asserts that “arraignment” includes the reading of the charge and the
12
court asking the defendant for a plea. Id. (citing Cal. Penal Code § 988). Defendant argues that
13
arraignment did not occur until the second court appearance, at which point Plaintiffs were
14
represented. Id. at 9. Therefore, Defendant concludes, the lack of representation at the first court
15
appearance could not have resulted in a violation of the statutes. Id.
16
Third, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot assert a claim under the Fourteenth
17
Amendment based on the alleged denial of a prompt bail hearing because there is no such right.
18
Id. at 9-10 (citing Fields v. Henry County, Tennessee, 701 F.3d 180, 185 (6th Cir. 2012) for the
19
propositions that there is no Eighth Amendment right to speedy bail and that the state right to be
20
examined in a bail hearing does not establish a liberty interest worthy of protection under the
21
Fourteenth Amendment).
22
Having addressed each of Plaintiffs‟ federal claims, Defendant argues that the Court has no
23
subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Id. at 10. Should the Court
24
exercise jurisdiction over this case, Defendant contends that the state law claims lack merit. Id.
25
First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs‟ claims under California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1 are
26
based on the alleged denial of Plaintiffs‟ speedy trial rights, a theory that is flawed for the reasons
27
stated above. Id. Second, Defendant contends that she complies with California Government
28
Code § 27706 by providing counsel at the next hearing following the state court‟s order of referral.
7
1
Id.
2
C.
The Opposition
3
First, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant denied them their Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Opposition, 9-15. Plaintiffs argue that counsel must be appointed within a reasonable time after
5
attachment to allow for adequate representation at any critical stage before trial, as well as trial
6
itself. Id. at 10 (citing Rothgery, 554 U.S. at 212, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366). Plaintiffs
7
assert that the critical stage analysis is jurisdiction specific. Id. at 14 (citing Hamilton v. Alabama,
8
368 U.S. 52, 54, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961)). Plaintiffs argue that, in California,
9
arraignment and ensuing time period preceding trial are critical stages. Id. at 12 (citing United
10
States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2004)). Plaintiff states that the Ninth Circuit
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
applies a three-factor test for determining a critical stage, considering whether: (1) failure to
12
pursue strategies or remedies results in the loss of significant rights; (2) skilled counsel would be
13
useful in helping the accused understand the legal confrontation; and (3) the proceeding tests the
14
merits of the accused‟s case. Id. at 12-13 (citing Benford, 574 F.3d 1228). Plaintiffs argue that
15
Defendant‟s absence at the initial court appearance forced Plaintiffs to (1) forego their right to
16
enter a plea at arraignment; (2) forego examination regarding whether bail was excessive; (3)
17
forego applying for lower bail or release on their own recognizance; (4) allow a continuance in
18
violation of California Penal Code § 1050, which provides the right to a preliminary hearing at the
19
earliest possible time; (5) forego their right to an immediate probable cause hearing when charged
20
with a misdemeanor; (6) forego all investigation and preparation of their cases while they waited
21
in jail; and (7) forego examination for diversion. Id. at 13. Plaintiffs argue that this satisfied the
22
Benford criteria. Id.
23
Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant violated their Sixth Amendment rights when it
24
required them to wait in jail for 5 to 13 days as a precondition to the appointment of counsel. Id.
25
at 10. Plaintiffs contend that appointment of counsel was necessary in the days between hearings
26
as the only possible means of asserting pretrial rights and investigation in preparation for trial. Id.
27
Plaintiffs argue that the time they remained in custody awaiting their next court appearance was a
28
critical stage of the trial for this reason. Id. at 10-11. Plaintiffs express concern that, if
8
1
Defendant‟s arguments are accepted, there would be no violation of law if Defendant delayed
2
coming to court for a prolonged period after the first appearance. Id. at 11.
3
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process
right to a speedy trial. Id. at 15-18. Plaintiffs state that, pursuant to California Penal Code § 1050,
5
criminal defendants have a right to a preliminary hearing and a trial at the earliest possible time,
6
and that the criminal cases may only be continued upon a showing of good cause. Id. at 15.
7
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant‟s policy resulted in continuance without Plaintiffs‟ becoming
8
aware of their rights or any showing of good cause. Id. Plaintiffs contend that the failure to
9
provide enough public defenders in such a way that forces the indigent to choose between the right
10
to a speedy trial and the right to representation of competent counsel denies their right to a speedy
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
trial. Id. at 15-16 (citing People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557, 571, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738
12
(1980)). Plaintiffs assert that California Penal Code § 859b entitles them to a preliminary hearing
13
at the earliest possible time, ten days after the initial court appearance unless the matter were
14
continued, with good cause, to another date for entry of plea. Id. at 16. Plaintiffs argue that
15
Defendant‟s policy results in continuance without good cause, thwarting the statutory scheme. Id.
16
To the extent that entry of a plea is required to trigger the statutory scheme, Plaintiffs contend that
17
Defendant has prevented them from being able to enter their plea and has thereby forced them,
18
through inaction, to choose between their statutory speedy trial rights and their right to counsel.
19
Id. at 16-18.
20
Plaintiffs assert that their statutory speedy trial rights are mandatory, and create a liberty
21
interest that is protectable under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 18. Plaintiffs note that Article
22
I, Section 13 of the California Constitution declares that, “In criminal prosecutions, in any court
23
whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial.” Id.
24
that criminal charges brought against them must be dismissed if the preliminary hearing is set or
25
continued, absent good cause or waiver by the parties, beyond the time period for holding the
26
preliminary hearing specified by statue. Id. (citing Ramos v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th
27
719, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 (2007)).
28
Plaintiffs assert
Third, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant prevented the magistrate from exercising
9
independent judgment with respect to bail. Id. at 19-21. Plaintiffs assert that the Supreme Court
2
has recognized the right to a bail hearing, and has stated that relief must be speedy. Id. at 19
3
(citing Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951)). Plaintiffs contend that, under
4
California law, a bail hearing must be held in open court within 48 hours. Id. at 19-20 (citing Cal.
5
Penal Code §§ 825, 1270.1). Plaintiffs state that Defendant‟s policy prevented the magistrate from
6
exercising independent judgment because it restricted the flow of information to the court
7
regarding any favorable information concerning Plaintiffs‟ circumstances in violation of California
8
Penal Code § 1270.1. Id. at 20-21 (citing People v. Grace, 166 Cal.App.2d 68, 79, 332 P.2d 811
9
(1958)). Plaintiffs contend that controlling Ninth Circuit precedent establishes that a violation
10
may be found where officials interfere with the magistrate‟s judgment, which Plaintiffs argue
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
happened in this case. Id. at 21 (citing Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652 (9th Cir.
12
2007)).
13
Fourth, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is not in compliance with Government Code §
14
27706. Id. at 21-24. Plaintiffs assert that the Public Defender has an independent duty to seek
15
immediate appointment to represent in-custody indigent defendants. Id. at 22. Plaintiffs contend
16
that Defendant‟s failure to appear in the case until the continued arraignment disadvantages
17
criminal defendants and fails to comply with Defendant‟s statutory duty. Id. at 24.
18
D.
The Reply
19
Defendant addresses several points in Reply. First, applying Benford, Defendant argues
20
that the initial appearance was not a critical stage. Defendant‟s Reply in Support of Motion to
21
Dismiss (“Reply”), 3-4. Defendant implies that the rights that Plaintiffs contend they lost at the
22
initial appearance were not alleged in the Complaint and that Plaintiffs lack standing to raise some
23
of those rights, as felony defendants. Id. at 3. In any event, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs were
24
able to assert each of the purportedly denied rights either at their further arraignment or thereafter.
25
Id. at 3-4 (citing Cal. Penal Code §§ 859b, 1000(b)).
26
Second, Defendant argues that whether Plaintiffs were forced to remain in jail until the
27
second appearance is irrelevant to their Sixth Amendment claim. Id. at 4. Defendant contends
28
that Plaintiffs‟ factual allegations do not plausibly lead to the conclusion that Plaintiffs remained
10
1
in jail as a result of the absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing, given that they may not have
2
been eligible for diversion or able to obtain or afford reduced bail. Id. Moreover, Defendant
3
argues that the time period during which counsel must be appointed is governed primarily by the
4
subsequent event, not the time it takes to appoint counsel. Id. Defendant notes that courts have
5
approved delays of over a month in appointment. Id. at 4-5 (citing Grogen v. Gautreaux, 2012
6
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120411, at *10 (M.D. La. July 11, 2012); Hawkins v. Montague County, Texas,
7
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116361, at *35 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2010)). Further, Defendant asserts that
8
it had no role in determining the length of the delay because the next court date was set by the
9
state court judge. Id. at 5.
Third, Defendant addresses Plaintiffs‟ asserted speedy trial rights. Id. at 5-7. Defendant
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
states that Plaintiffs added California Penal Code § 1050 in their Opposition, but that § 1050 is by
12
its own terms discretionary and therefore does not convey the requisite liberty interest to support a
13
§ 1983 claim. Id. at 6. Defendant also rejects Plaintiffs‟ contention that Defendant forced them to
14
give up their speedy trial rights, arguing that those rights could have been asserted at arraignment
15
and subsequently. Id.
Fourth, Defendant addresses Plaintiffs‟ asserted bail rights. Id. at 7. Defendant argues that
16
17
Plaintiffs could have sought lower bail at their subsequent arraignment or later in their criminal
18
proceedings. Id. (citing Cal. Penal Code §§ 1269c, 1270.1).
19
IV.
ANALYSIS
20
A.
Legal Standard
21
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted
22
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “The
23
purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the
24
complaint.” N. Star. Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). In ruling on
25
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court takes “all allegations of material fact as true
26
and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Parks Sch. of Bus. v.
27
Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1990).
28
Generally, the plaintiff‟s burden at the pleading stage is relatively light. Rule 8(a) requires
11
1
a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
2
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must allege
3
facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
4
662, 663 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). The factual
5
allegations must be definite enough to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the
6
assumption that all of the complaint‟s allegations are true.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. “[T]he
7
tenet that a court must accept a complaint‟s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals
8
of a cause of action‟s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
9
663.
B.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims
42 U.S.C. §1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state
12
law, deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws
13
of the United States. § 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, but merely a method for
14
vindicating federal rights established elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109
15
S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). To state a claim for a violation of § 1983, a plaintiff must
16
allege deprivation of a constitutional right by a government official acting “under the color of state
17
law.” Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003).
18
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Defendant, sued in her official capacity as the Public
19
Defender for Contra Costa County, acted “under the color of state law.” See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins.
20
Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) (allegations against public
21
officials satisfy the state action requirement); Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 469-71 (9th
22
Cir. 2003) (Public Defender is a state actor for the purposes of § 1983 when acting solely as the
23
administrative head of the agency, on behalf of the county, in determining how the overall
24
resources of the Public Defender‟s office will be spent). Nevertheless, as discussed below, the
25
Court concludes that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a cause of action pursuant to § 1983.
26
Each of the § 1983 claims is dismissed with leave to amend.
27
28
1.
Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the accused, in all
12
1
criminal prosecutions, the right “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const.
2
amend. VI. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require the court to advise the accused of
3
the constitutional guarantee. Fed. R. Crim. P. 44 (“If the defendant appears in court without
4
counsel, the court shall advise him of his right to counsel and assign counsel to represent him at
5
every stage of the proceeding unless he elects to proceed without counsel or is able to obtain
6
counsel”). As described below, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of
7
the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This Court addresses only the narrow circumstances
8
identified in the Complaint: at the Plaintiffs‟ first appearance, the only thing that happened
9
(presumably after being provided with a copy of the charges) was a request for appointment of
counsel. No other court proceedings occurred without counsel. Whether or not there was a delay
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
between the initial appearance and the next appearance, the only specific allegation of prejudice is
12
the brief delay in the assertion of speedy trial rights or the right to seek a reduction of bail, release
13
on the defendant‟s own recognizance, or diversion. No rights were lost. As alleged, counsel was
14
present at each critical stage following attachment of the right to counsel and Plaintiffs have not
15
plausibly alleged that their representation at a subsequent critical stage was prejudiced by any
16
delay in appointing counsel following attachment.
17
18
19
a.
Attachment
i.
Background Law
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal prosecutions attaches when prosecution
20
begins. Rothgery, 554 U.S. at 198-99, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (citing McNeil v.
21
Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991)). Prosecution begins with
22
the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings, “whether by way of formal charge,
23
preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” Id. at 198-99 (quoting United
24
States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984)). Federal law
25
determines what suffices as a commitment to prosecute for purposes of the attachment of the right
26
to counsel. Id. at 207 (citing Moran, 475 U.S. at 429, n. 3 (“[T]he type of circumstances that
27
would give rise to the right would certainly have a federal definition”). The right to counsel
28
attaches at the initial appearance before a judicial officer, which is generally the hearing at which
13
1
“the magistrate informs the defendant of the charge in the complaint, and of various rights in
2
further proceedings,” and “determine[s] the conditions for pretrial release.” Id. (citing 1 W.
3
LaFave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Crim. P. § 1.4(g), p 135 (3d ed. 2007)).
ii.
4
Application to Facts
Following Rothgery, the right to counsel in this case attached at each Plaintiff‟s initial
6
appearance. The parties agree on this point. Motion, 5-6 (“the right to counsel attached at the
7
initial court appearance”); Opposition, 10 (“the right to counsel attached at the initial court
8
appearance”). At the initial court appearance, the Court asked each Plaintiff whether he could
9
afford counsel. Complaint, ¶¶ 31, 35. Each responded that he could not and would like the court
10
to appoint counsel. Id. After the right to counsel attached, the court referred Plaintiffs‟ cases to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
the Defendant and continued the arraignment to a later hearing date referred to as “further
12
arraignment.” Id. Neither Plaintiff was asked to enter a plea. Id. At the further arraignment
13
hearing, each Plaintiff was represented by counsel and entered a plea. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 36.
14
15
16
b.
Critical Stage
i.
Background Law
Once the right to counsel attaches, the accused is entitled to appointed counsel during any
17
“critical stage” of the post-attachment proceedings. Rothgery, 554 U.S. at 212, 128 S.Ct. 2578,
18
171 L.Ed.2d 366. A critical stage is a “stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of a
19
criminal accused may be affected.” Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting
20
Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 134, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967)). While there is no
21
definitive list of critical stages, decisions of the United States Supreme Court identify certain
22
stages as critical. See Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 81, 124 S.Ct. 1379, 158 L.Ed.2d 209 (2004)
23
(entry of a guilty plea); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393
24
(1977) (sentencing); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 236-37, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149
25
(1967) (post-indictment lineup). Case law also illustrates stages that are not critical. Gilbert v.
26
California, 388 U.S. 263, 267, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967) (taking a handwriting
27
sample); United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 321, 93 S.Ct. 2568, 37 L.Ed.2d 619 (1973) (post-
28
indictment photo lineup); Hovey, 458 F.3d at 902 (mid-trial hearing on the competency of
14
1
2
defendant‟s lawyer).
Courts decide whether a state criminal proceeding is critical by looking to the functions of
the proceeding under state law. See Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 54, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7
4
L.Ed.2d 114 (1961) (“Whatever may be the function and importance of arraignment in other
5
jurisdictions, we have said enough to show that in Alabama it is a critical stage in a criminal
6
proceeding”); see also United States ex rel. Cooper v. Reincke, 333 F.2d 608, 612 (2d Cir. 1964)
7
(“The Connecticut hearing in probable cause cannot, therefore, be characterized as critical as is
8
arraignment in Alabama”). The Ninth Circuit has developed a three-factor test for determining
9
whether a stage is critical. Menefield v. Borg, 881 F.2d 696, 698-99 (9th Cir. 1989); Benford, 574
10
F.3d at 1232; McNeal, 623 F.3d at 1289. Any one of these three factors may be sufficient to make
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
a stage critical: (1) failure to pursue strategies or remedies results in a loss of significant rights;
12
(2) skilled counsel would be useful in helping the accused understand the legal confrontation; and
13
(3) the proceeding tests the merits of the accused‟s case. Menefield, 881 F.2d at 699; Hovey, 458
14
F.3d at 901-02. In reviewing the plaintiff‟s lack of counsel at a motion for a new trial, the
15
Menefield court considered the substantive rights in question and whether the presence of counsel
16
would have helped the defendant enforce those rights. Id.
17
ii.
Application to Facts
18
Plaintiffs‟ right to counsel attached at the initial court appearance. Once each Plaintiff
19
sought appointed counsel, the court stopped the proceeding and continued the arraignment to a
20
further hearing, where the accused would be represented by counsel. Each Plaintiff was then
21
asked to enter plea at the further arraignment hearing. In California, arraignment consists of
22
“reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant a true copy
23
thereof, and … asking the defendant whether the defendant pleads guilty or not guilty to the
24
accusatory pleading.” Cal. Penal Code § 988. Plaintiffs‟ arraignment began at their initial
25
appearance. It was completed at the further arraignment hearing because that is when they were
26
apprised of the charges against them and asked to enter a plea. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were
27
28
15
1
represented by counsel at further arraignment, consistent with California law.2
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant violated Plaintiffs‟ constitutional right to counsel by
2
3
failing to represent Plaintiffs at their first appearance, or a reasonable time thereafter. Complaint,
4
¶ 47. They argue that the initial appearance and the five-to-thirteen-day waiting period were
5
critical stages of the proceedings. Opposition, 11. The core of Plaintiffs‟ complaint is that the
6
five-to-thirteen-day delay before Defendant represented Plaintiffs at the arraignment hearing was
7
“unreasonable” under the Sixth Amendment. Complaint, ¶ 42(1). The Court recognizes that, at
8
some point, the delay in appointment of counsel may be so long that it amounts to a deprivation of
9
significant rights of the accused. The limited holding here is that, on the facts alleged in this case,
10
no such deprivation has occurred.
The Court applies the Ninth Circuit‟s three-factor test to determine whether the initial
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
appearance or the waiting period thereafter was a critical stage. Beginning with the first factor of
13
the Ninth Circuit‟s test, the absence of counsel to pursue strategies or remedies at the initial
14
appearance (where the only event was an inquiry about the need for counsel) or in the hiatus
15
before the next hearing did not result in a loss of significant rights to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert
16
that they lost the rights to a prompt bail hearing and to a speedy trial. Complaint, ¶ 42. However,
17
Plaintiffs could have asserted those rights at the further arraignment or later. Indeed, Plaintiffs
18
maintained their rights--they entered a plea at the further arraignment, Complaint, ¶¶ 32, 36; they
19
could have requested lower bail at or after arraignment, In re Weiner, 32 Cal.App.4th 441, 444, 38
20
Cal.Rptr.2d 172 (1995) (citing Cal. Penal Code §§ 1269b, 1269c, 1273, 1277, 1476, 1538.5(k));
21
their speedy trial rights, including the right to a speedy preliminary examination, were still
22
triggered by arraignment or entry of plea, Cal. Penal Code § 859b; and they could have sought
23
diversion at arraignment, Cal. Penal Code § 1000b. Contrary to Plaintiffs‟ allegations, they lost
24
none of these rights. Like the Hovey plaintiff and his mid-trial attorney competency hearing,
25
26
27
28
2
California law guarantees the right to counsel at arraignment. People v. Cummings, 255 Cal.App.2d 341, 345, 62
Cal.Rptr. 859 (1967); see also Cal. Pen Code § 987(a) (“In a noncapital case, if the defendant appears for arraignment
without counsel, he or she shall be informed by the court that it is his or her right to have counsel before being
arraigned, and shall be asked if he or she desires the assistance of counsel. If he or she desires and is unable to employ
counsel the court shall assign counsel to defend him or her”).
16
1
Plaintiffs were “not at risk of permanent deprivation of any significant rights during the hearing.”
2
458 F.3d at 902. The bare allegation that they were delayed from five to thirteen days in asserting
3
those rights – until counsel could be appointed to represent them – did not amount to a deprivation
4
substantial enough to make the delay unreasonable, or a “critical stage.”
5
The fact that, had counsel been appointed at or closer to the initial appearance, counsel
6
might have applied for release on bail, caused a plea to be entered, or triggered statutory speedy
7
trial rights, does not change this analysis. Nothing happened at the initial appearance other than a
8
determination that Plaintiffs desired the appointment of counsel. The first appearance was not,
9
therefore, a critical stage. The state court correctly continued the matters until counsel could be
present. Similarly, no rights were lost or prejudiced during the brief waiting period. Indeed,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
immediately after the subsequent appointment of counsel, Plaintiffs could still enter a plea, invoke
12
their statutory speedy trial rights, or seek release on bail. Standing alone, the brief temporary
13
delay in assertion of these rights is not a sufficient deprivation to constitute a denial of their right
14
to counsel.
15
The Ninth Circuit‟s decision in Benford is instructive on this point. There, counsel did not
16
appear at a pre-trial conference. The defendant argued that, had counsel been present, he could
17
have moved for a continuance of the trial. Benford, 574 F.3d at 1232. The Ninth Circuit, noting
18
that “[n]othing significant occurred at the status conference,” concluded that it was not a “critical
19
stage” of the proceedings. Id. at 1232-33. The court rejected the defendant‟s argument that his
20
counsel could have asked for a continuance of the trial at the conference, noting that counsel could
21
“have moved for a continuance before the conference or after it.”
22
It is apparent from Benford that an appearance at which nothing happens (as is the case
23
here, where nothing occurred after the court asked whether Plaintiffs desired the appointment of
24
counsel) after which the defendant, represented by counsel, can still invoke his rights (here, their
25
statutory speedy trial rights, their right to a hearing on bail, and any right to seek a diversion) is
26
not a critical stage of the proceedings. The same can be said of a brief waiting period – here, five
27
to thirteen days – after the initial appearance.
28
Second, skilled counsel would not have been useful in helping the accused understand the
17
1
legal confrontation at the first appearance because there was no legal confrontation after the
2
accused requested counsel. There was also no legal confrontation during the five to thirteen days
3
Plaintiffs waited for further arraignment. Plaintiffs were subject to no adversarial proceeding
4
during this time. Nothing happened at the initial appearance after the court inquired whether
5
counsel should be appointed or during the five-to-thirteen day waiting period to test the merits of
6
the Plaintiffs‟ case. See Benford, 574 F.3d at 1233 (no “legal confrontation” at the pretrial status
7
conference, which was not a critical stage of the proceedings).
8
9
Plaintiffs cite Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York, 15 N.Y.3d 8, 904 N.Y.S.2d 296, 930
N.E.2d 217 (2010) as persuasive authority for the proposition that the arraignment and the time
between arraignment and trial are critical stages of the prosecution. In Hurrell-Harring, a number
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
of the twenty plaintiffs were unrepresented at arraignment, jailed after bail had been set in
12
amounts they could not afford, and remained unrepresented in subsequent proceedings where their
13
pleas were taken. Hurrell-Harring, 15 N.Y.3d at 19, 904 N.Y.S.2d 296, 930 N.E.2d 217. Several
14
other plaintiffs were nominally appointed counsel, but counsel was often unavailable, completely
15
unresponsive to urgent inquiries from jail, waived important rights without consulting plaintiffs,
16
missed court appearances, and appeared in court unprepared to proceed. Id. at 19-20.
17
The court held that the arraignment was a critical stage of the proceedings, even where no
18
plea was entered, because “plaintiffs‟ pretrial liberty interests were on that occasion regularly
19
adjudicated.” Id. at 20 (citing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 180.10(6) (“Upon arraignment, the court,
20
unless it intends immediately thereafter to dismiss the felony complaint and terminate the action,
21
must issue a securing order which, as provided in subdivision two of section 530.20, either
22
releases the defendant on his own recognizance or fixes bail or commits him to the custody of the
23
sheriff for his future appearance in such action”) (concerning proceedings upon a felony
24
complaint)). The court noted that, under New York law, a court is forbidden by statute “from
25
going forward with the [arraignment] without counsel for the defendant, unless the defendant has
26
knowingly agreed to proceed in counsel‟s absence.” Id. at 20-21 (citing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §
27
180.10(3) (“The defendant has a right to the aid of counsel at the arraignment and at every
28
subsequent stage of the action, and, if he appears upon such arraignment without counsel, has the
18
1
following rights: (a) To an adjournment for the purpose of obtaining counsel; and … (c) To have
2
counsel assigned by the court in any case where he is financially unable to obtain the same”),
3
180.10(5) (“If the defendant desires to proceed without the aid of counsel, the court must permit
4
him to do so if it is satisfied that he made such decision with knowledge of the significance
5
thereof, but if it is not so satisfied it may not proceed until the defendant is provided with counsel,
6
either of his own choosing or by assignment”)). The court concluded that “arraignments routinely,
7
and in New York as a matter of statutory design, encompass matters affecting a defendant‟s liberty
8
and ability to defend against the charges.” Id. at 21. The court also broadly held that “the period
9
between arraignment and trial” is also a critical stage under the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 21-22.
10
Hurrell-Harring is distinguishable from the present action. In Hurrell-Harring, the court‟s
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
holding relied on the fact that a number of pretrial liberty interests were adjudicated at the
12
arraignment, at which the right to counsel attached, without the presence of counsel. Here, no
13
pretrial liberty interests were adjudicated in the initial appearance, or in the following days, in the
14
absence of counsel. Rather, the arraignment was continued to allow for the appointment of
15
counsel. Indeed, this procedure is not facially inconsistent with the New York statutory
16
framework on which the holding in Hurrell-Harring was based. Moreover, the present case
17
involves only a five-to-thirteen day waiting period for the appointment of counsel during which
18
nothing happened to test the merits of Plaintiffs‟ case, not a denial of counsel throughout the much
19
longer time period between arraignment and trial.
20
DeWolfe v. Richmond, __ Md. __, __ A.3d __, 2012 WL 10853 (Jan. 4, 2012), cited by
21
Plaintiffs, is also distinguishable. In DeWolfe, the court held that, pursuant to Maryland state law,
22
the public defender was required to represent a criminal defendant at the bail hearing portion of
23
their initial appearance. DeWolfe, __ Md. __, __ A.3d __, 2012 WL 10853 at *13. Thus, the court
24
held that the bail hearing may not occur at the initial appearance, assuming the defendant qualified
25
for public defender representation, unless counsel had been appointed or the defendant waived the
26
right to counsel. Id. at *17. “If a public defender is not immediately available to assume
27
representation, then the Commissioner must delay the bail hearing until such representation can be
28
provided or is waived by the defendant.” Id. In reaching its conclusion, the court repeatedly
19
1
stated that the relevant Maryland state law it was interpreting affords broader protection than the
2
Sixth Amendment. Id. at *7, *9-*11. First, DeWolfe differs from the present case in that involves
3
only the interpretation of Maryland state law. Second, DeWolfe differs in that a bail hearing was
4
held in the absence of counsel. Moreover, the facts of this case appear consistent with the
5
statement in DeWolfe that the Commissioner must delay the portion of the initial appearance that
6
constituted a critical stage, the bail hearing, until representation could be provided to a qualifying
7
defendant. That is what was done in this case.
8
c.
9
Length of Delay and Prejudice
Because the Court finds that the portion of the initial appearance after the accused
requested counsel and the five-to-thirteen-day waiting period were not critical stages, the first
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
critical stage after attachment of the right to counsel was the further arraignment. The Court now
12
examines whether Plaintiffs‟ have sufficiently alleged that their Sixth Amendment rights were
13
violated with respect to the timing of representation for the further arraignment and concludes that
14
they have not.
15
i.
Background Law
16
Though Rothgery requires the appointment of counsel within a reasonable time to allow
17
for adequate representation at any critical stage after attachment, it does not address the issue of
18
how much time is reasonable before counsel is appointed. Rothgery, 554 U.S. at 212 n.15, 128
19
S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (“We do not here purport to set out the scope of an individual‟s
20
postattachment right to the presence of counsel. It is enough for present purposes to highlight that
21
the enquiry into that right is a different one from the attachment analysis”). After Rothgery,
22
federal district courts have three times addressed the issue of whether a delay in the appointment
23
of counsel is reasonable. In all three cases, the district court has declined to find the delay – forty
24
days, two months, and an unspecified period – unreasonable without proof of actual prejudice:
25
26
27
28
Finally, although the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment
attaches at the time of an arrestee‟s initial appearance, Rothgery v.
Gillespie County, Texas, 554 U.S. 191, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d
366 (2008), neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has
determined that counsel must be appointed within a specific period
of time thereafter. … All that the plaintiff has alleged in this case is
20
that he was not provided with appointed counsel for a period of forty
(40) days after his arrest. He fails to allege, however, that he
suffered any actual prejudice as a result of this delay or that, had an
attorney been appointed at an earlier time, a meritorious defense
might have been asserted resulting in his release or in the dismissal
of the charges levied against him. … Accordingly, in the absence of
any assertion of prejudice resulting from the alleged delay, this
Court concludes that the alleged 40-day delay in the appointment of
counsel was not so unreasonable as to result in a Sixth Amendment
violation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Grogen, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120411 at *9-*10; see also Hawkins, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8
116361 at *35 (“The Court finds that the approximate two-month delay in receiving court-
9
appointed counsel fails to rise to the level of a constitutional violation based on the Sixth
Amendment.”); Wingo v. Kaufman County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55865, *2-*3 (N.D. Tex. June
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
4, 2010) (“The court can not determine from plaintiff's complaint … whether the delay in
12
appointment of counsel was reasonable or whether plaintiff suffered any prejudice from the
13
delay.”).
ii.
14
Application to Facts
15
The district court decisions in Grogen, Hawkins, and Wingo make clear that, although
16
there is no specific timeframe that federal courts have deemed reasonable for appointment of
17
counsel post-attachment, a court faced with making a reasonableness decision needs to analyze
18
prejudice to the accused that results from delay in appointment of counsel. See Grogen, 2012 U.S.
19
Dist. LEXIS 120411 at *9-*10; Hawkins, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116361 at *35; Wingo, 2010
20
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55865 at *2-*3. Moreover, even if the specific timeframes in the previous
21
district court cases were applied here, the five-to-thirteen-day delays of which Plaintiffs complain
22
are significantly smaller delays than the forty-day and two-month delays the other district courts
23
found permissible.
24
Plaintiffs do not suggest a bright-line rule regarding how quickly counsel should be
25
appointed. However, in arguing that they lost rights during the delay, they argue that they were
26
prejudiced. As discussed above in the Menefield factors, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs
27
were prejudiced by the delay. During the waiting period, Plaintiffs did not lose any of the rights
28
they enumerate, nor did any adversarial action take place that affected the merits or resolution of
21
1
their cases. When adversarial proceedings took place at the further arraignment, Plaintiffs were
2
represented.
3
Plaintiffs also make a conclusory allegation that they were prejudiced because the delay
hindered their investigation and preparation for trial. Opposition, 10, 13. Plaintiffs make no
5
specific allegations on this matter nor do they explain how their trial preparation was hindered.
6
Plaintiffs had no less time to prepare for trial than they would have had if counsel had been
7
appointed a few days before or after the time counsel was actually appointed because, as discussed
8
in greater detail below, the preliminary hearing and trial are scheduled from the date of
9
arraignment. There is no indication that Plaintiffs‟ wait for appointment of counsel influenced the
10
scheduling of post-arraignment procedures, including trial, in such a way that reduced the number
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
of days available to them for trial preparation. Prejudice to a defendant‟s fair adjudication may
12
stem, for example, from delays that “weaken the defense through the dimming of memories, the
13
death or disappearance of witnesses, and the loss or destruction of evidence.” See People v.
14
Martinez, 22 Cal. 4th 750, 767, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 381, 996 P.2d 32 (2000). However, Plaintiffs do
15
not allege that they suffered any such impediments.
16
According to Plaintiffs, failing to treat the five-to-thirteen-day waiting period as a critical
17
stage would mean that Defendant could delay appointment of counsel for an indefinite period of
18
time after the initial hearing without violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Opposition,
19
11. Plaintiffs rely on Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles to highlight the absurdity of such a
20
position: postponing appointment of counsel for ninety-nine years would still not give a plaintiff a
21
basis for redress. 12 Cal.3d 710, 718-19, 117 Cal.Rptr. 241, 527 P.2d 865 (1974). Plaintiffs are
22
mistaken in this logic. As described above, the Court only addresses the delay at issue in this case,
23
five to thirteen days. At some point, a lengthy delay, or a delay accompanied by other events, may
24
indeed constitute a deprivation of a defendant‟s Sixth Amendment rights. But not here. Taking
25
the facts as Plaintiffs allege them to be true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs‟ Sixth Amendment
26
claim lacks merit and it is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
27
28
2.
Fourteenth Amendment Claims – Statutory Speedy Trial Rights
In their second and third causes of action, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant violated their
22
1
substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving
2
Plaintiffs of their state law speedy trial rights. Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
3
1983. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs‟ second and third causes of action are
4
DISMISSED with leave to amend.
a.
5
Background Law
6
“Unless there is a breach of constitutional rights, … § 1983 does not provide redress in
7
federal court for violations of state law.” Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 683 F.3d 1051,
8
1060 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Schlette v. Burdick, 633 F.2d 920, 922 n.3 (9th Cir. 1980)). “[N]ot
9
every violation of state law amounts to an infringement of constitutional rights.” Id.
10
Plaintiffs seek to assert their statutory speedy trial rights, provided by the state of
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
California, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no
12
state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” U.S.
13
Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Fourteenth Amendment contains both procedural and substantive
14
due process protections. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d
15
697 (1987).
16
17
i.
Procedural Due Process
Courts analyze procedural due process claims in two steps: “[T]he first asks whether there
18
exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State; the second
19
examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.”
20
Carver, 558 F.3d at 872 (quoting Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct.
21
1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989)).
22
“A liberty interest may arise from either of two sources: the due process clause itself or
23
state law.” Id. (citing Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986)). “[T]o create
24
a liberty interest protected by due process, the state law must contain: (1) substantive predicates
25
governing official decisionmaking, and (2) explicitly mandatory language specifying the outcome
26
that must be reached if the substantive predicates are met.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 842
27
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1051, 116 S.Ct. 718, 133 L.Ed.2d 671 (1996) (internal
28
quotation marks and citations omitted). Where “[t]he only mandatory language in [the state
23
1
statute at issue] concerns a procedural right …[, t]hat language cannot create a liberty interest
2
within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment because expectation of receiving process is not,
3
without more, a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
4
Amendment.” Carver, 558 F.3d at 875 (internal quotation marks, footnote, italics, and citations
5
omitted); see also Marsh v. County of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2012) (“to contain
6
the requisite „substantive predicates,‟ „the state law at issue must provide more than merely
7
procedure, it must protect some substantive end‟”) (quoting Bonin, 59 F.3d at 842).
ii.
8
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process limits what the government may do in its legislative and executive
10
capacities. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
(1998). “[A] substantive due process claim „must, as a threshold matter, show a government
12
deprivation of life, liberty, or property.‟” Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent
13
Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d
14
867, 871 (9th Cir. 1998)).
15
Substantive due process protects against the arbitrary or oppressive exercise of
16
governmental power. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 845-46, 118 S.Ct. 1708,
17
140 L.Ed.2d 1043. “[T]he Due Process Clause is violated by executive action only when it can be
18
properly characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.” Id. at 847
19
(quoting Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992))
20
(internal quotation marks omitted). The cognizable level of executive abuse of power is that
21
which “shocks the conscience” or “violates the decencies of civilized conduct.” Id. at 846.
iii.
22
Statutory Speedy Trial Rights
California Penal Code §§ 1049.5 and 1382 create a right to speedy trial; the right to a
23
24
speedy preliminary hearing arises from California Penal Code § 859b. California Penal Code §
25
1050 provides the procedure for granting continuances.3 The clock for speedy trial determinations
26
and for preliminary hearings begins to run at either arraignment or entry of plea, depending on the
27
28
3
§ 1050 “is directory only and does not mandate dismissal of an action by its terms.” Cal. Penal Code § 1050(l).
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
statute.
In felony cases, the court shall set a date for trial which is within 60
days of the defendant's arraignment in the superior court unless,
upon a showing of good cause as prescribed in Section 1050, the
court lengthens the time. If the court, after a hearing as prescribed in
Section 1050, finds that there is good cause to set the date for trial
beyond the 60 days, it shall state on the record the facts proved that
justify its finding.
Cal. Penal Code § 1049.5 (emphasis added).
(a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order
the action to be dismissed in the following cases: …
(2) In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial within
60 days of the defendant's arraignment…
(3) Regardless of when the complaint is filed, when a defendant in a
misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days
after he or she is arraigned or enters his or her plea, whichever
occurs later, if the defendant is in custody at the time of arraignment
or plea, whichever occurs later, or in all other cases, within 45 days
after the defendant's arraignment or entry of the plea, whichever
occurs later…
Cal. Penal Code § 1382 (emphasis added).
Both the defendant and the people have the right to a preliminary
examination at the earliest possible time, and unless both waive that
right or good cause for a continuance is found as provided for in
Section 1050, the preliminary examination shall be held within 10
court days of the date the defendant is arraigned or pleads,
whichever occurs later, or within 10 court days of the date criminal
proceedings are reinstated…
…
The magistrate shall dismiss the complaint if the preliminary
examination is set or continued more than 60 days from the date of
the arraignment, plea, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings …
unless the defendant personally waives his or her right to a
preliminary examination within 60 days.
Cal. Penal Code § 859b (emphasis added).
In California, arraignment is defined by California Penal Code § 988, which provides that
26
arraignment consists of “reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the
27
defendant a true copy thereof, and … asking the defendant whether the defendant pleads guilty or
28
not guilty to the accusatory pleading.” Determining whether or not a statutory speedy trial right
25
1
has been violated involves determining the number of days between the time the accused was
2
arraigned (apprised of charges and asked to enter a plea) and the time of trial. People v. Benhoor,
3
177 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 (2009) (“section 1382 enforces the speedy trial
4
right with specific deadlines measured by days after certain events, including arraignment,
5
declaration of a mistrial or entry of an order granting a new trial”); see also Craft v. Superior
6
Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1546, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 912 (2006) (section 1382a “enforces the
7
speedy trial right with deadlines measured by days before or after arraignment or other prosecution
8
events”). Where the accused faces an unexcused delay beyond the period set by California Penal
9
Code § 1382 (sixty days after arraignment or entry of plea for felonies, thirty days after
arraignment or entry of plea for misdemeanors), he or she is entitled to dismissal of the criminal
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
charge. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th at 766, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 381, 996 P.2d 32 (quoting People v.
12
Godlewski, 22 Cal.2d 677, 682, 140 P.2d 381 (1943)). Prior to the attachment of statutory speedy
13
trial rights, protection for criminal defendants against unreasonable and prejudicial delays arises
14
from the California constitution as well as the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
15
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Benhoor, 177 Cal.App.4th at 1316 n.8, 1317, 99
16
Cal.Rptr.3d 827 (citing Serna v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 239, 251, 219 Cal.Rptr. 420, 707 P.2d
17
793 (1985); Martinez, 22 Cal.4th at 766-67).
18
19
b.
Application to Facts
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs do not identify the source of the statutory speedy trial rights
20
on which they predicate two of their Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. In their
21
Opposition, they rely on California Penal Code §§ 859b and 1050. Defendant also addresses the
22
speedy trial rights set forth in California Penal Code §§ 1382 and 1049.5. Whether or not the
23
statutory scheme created a constitutionally protected liberty interest, Plaintiffs have not adequately
24
pled a violation of their statutory speedy trial rights. Therefore, their Fourteenth Amendment
25
claims relying on those statutory violations fail.
26
Each Plaintiff‟s arraignment was complete when they were asked to enter a plea at the
27
further arraignment hearing, in accordance with the definition of arraignment under California
28
state law. See Cal. Penal Code § 988. Plaintiffs assume that the initial hearing, rather than the
26
1
further arraignment, was the arraignment. See Opposition, 16 (time for preliminary hearing under
2
California Penal Code § 859b would be ten days after initial court appearance). However,
3
arraignment was not complete at the initial hearing because neither Plaintiff was asked to enter a
4
plea. Id.; Complaint, ¶¶ 31-32; 35-36. Only when Plaintiffs had been apprised of the accusations
5
against them, given a copy of the accusations, and asked to enter a plea were they arraigned. See
6
Cal. Penal Code § 988.
Plaintiffs bolster their arguments about illegal speedy trial delays with legal authorities that
8
are distinguishable from the present case. Plaintiffs rely on People v. Johnson for the premise that
9
the government cannot use the scarcity of public resources as a justification for delaying
10
appointment of counsel. 26 Cal.3d 557, 571-72, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738 (1980).
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
However, the Johnson court was considering a post-arraignment delay, unlike the case at hand.
12
Id. at 563, 571-72. Johnson is not instructive to the Court on the matters currently before it.
13
Plaintiffs also argue that they were subject to an illegal gratuitous delay, citing Youngblood
14
v. Gates, 200 Cal.App.3d 1302, 1311-12, 246 Cal.Rptr. 775 (1988). However, the question in
15
Youngblood was whether the government had violated the two-day timeframe for taking arrestees
16
before a magistrate. Id. at 1309. In the present case, Plaintiffs have not alleged such a violation.
17
The other legal authorities cited by Plaintiffs do no better than Johnson and Youngblood in
18
shedding light on the issue raised by the present case.
19
Plaintiffs do not allege any delay after the completion of arraignment or the entry of their
20
plea. Thus, they have not alleged: (1) that a preliminary examination was not held “within 10
21
court days of the date [Plaintiffs were] arraigned or [pled], whichever occurs later[;]” (2) that “the
22
preliminary examination [was] set or continued more than 60 days from the date of the
23
arraignment, plea, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings[;]” (3) that the court failed to “set a
24
date for trial which is within 60 days of [Plaintiffs‟] arraignment in the superior court[;]” or (4)
25
that the procedures in § 1050 were triggered. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 859b, 1049.5, 1050, 1382.
26
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not alleged any deprivation of their statutory rights to a speedy trial
27
and preliminary hearing due to delay that occurred prior to the completion of their arraignment.
28
The Court concludes as a matter of law that Plaintiffs have failed to state a violation of statutory
27
1
speedy trial rights under California state law. Therefore, Plaintiffs have suffered no violation of
2
state statutory rights to a speedy trial on which to base a claim for a violation of the Fourteenth
3
Amendment. Plaintiffs‟ second and third causes of action are premised solely on the alleged
4
violation of their state statutory speedy trial rights. Accordingly, Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss
5
Plaintiffs‟ second and third causes of action is GRANTED. Plaintiffs will be given leave to
6
amend.
7
8
9
10
3.
As discussed below, Plaintiffs‟ fourth cause of action, a Fourteenth Amendment procedural
due process claim predicated on the alleged denial of a prompt bail hearing, is dismissed with
leave to amend.
a.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
14
15
16
Background Law
i.
12
13
Fourteenth Amendment Claim – Denial of Prompt Bail Hearing
Procedural Due Process
The procedural due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment are
described above.
ii.
Asserted Right to a Prompt Bail Hearing
The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
17
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The
18
California Constitution also supplies a right to bail, with exceptions for capital crimes and felony
19
offenses where certain conditions are met. Cal. Const. art. 1, § 12. To prevail on a claim that the
20
bail set for Plaintiffs violated the excessive bail clause of the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiffs must
21
demonstrate that their bail was enhanced for purposes unauthorized by California law or that the
22
amount of bail was excessive in light of the valid purposes for which it was set. Galen, 477 F.3d
23
at 661. California Penal Code § 1269b(c) provides in relevant part that: “It is the duty of the
24
superior court judges in each county to prepare, adopt, and annually revise a uniform countywide
25
schedule of bail for all bailable offenses…” Cal. Penal Code § 1269b(c). “If a defendant has
26
appeared before a judge of the court on the charge contained in the complaint, indictment, or
27
information, the bail shall be in the amount fixed by the judge at the time of the appearance. If
28
that appearance has not been made, the bail shall be in the amount fixed in the warrant for arrest
28
1
or, if no warrant for arrest has been issued, the amount of bail shall be pursuant to the uniform
2
countywide schedule of bail for the county in which the defendant is required to appear,
3
previously fixed and approved…” Cal. Penal Code § 1269b(b).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
“California vests judicial officers with the exclusive authority to enhance or reduce bail.”
Galen, 477 F.3d at 663 (citing Cal. Penal Code § 1269c). § 1269c provides:
If a defendant is arrested without a warrant for a bailable felony offense or for the
misdemeanor offense of violating a domestic violence restraining order, and a peace
officer has reasonable cause to believe that the amount of bail set forth in the schedule of
bail for that offense is insufficient to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member
of a victim, of domestic violence, the peace officer shall prepare a declaration under
penalty of perjury setting forth the facts and circumstances in support of his or her belief
and file it with a magistrate, as defined in Section 808, or his or her commissioner, in the
county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed or having personal
jurisdiction over the defendant, requesting an order setting higher bail. Except where a
defendant is charged with an offense listed in subdivision (a) of Section 1270.1, the
defendant, either personally or through his or her attorney, friend, or family member, also
may make application to the magistrate for release on bail lower than that provided in the
schedule of bail or on his or her own recognizance. The magistrate or commissioner to
whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems
sufficient to ensure the defendant‟s appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or
family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and
conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may
authorize the defendant‟s release on his or her own recognizance. If, after the application
is made, no order changing the amount of bail is issued within eight hours after booking,
the defendant shall be entitled to be released on posting the amount of bail set forth in the
applicable bail schedule.
19
Cal. Penal Code § 1269c. As to the offenses listed in § 1270.1, which are serious or violent
20
felonies, that section provides in relevant part:
21
22
23
24
25
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (e), before any person who is arrested for any of the
following crimes may be released on bail in an amount that is either more or less than the
amount contained in the schedule of bail for the offense, or may be released on his or her
own recognizance, a hearing shall be held in open court before the magistrate or judge…
(b) The prosecuting attorney and defense attorney shall be given a two-court-day written
notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. If the detained person does not have
counsel, the court shall appoint counsel for the purposes of this section only. The hearing
required by this section shall be held within the time period prescribed in Section 825.
26
27
28
Cal. Penal Code § 1270.1(a)-(b).
California judicial officers‟ exclusive authority to enhance or reduce bail is constrained in
29
1
that the judicial officer is required to take into consideration several factors. See Cal. Penal Code
2
§§ 1270.1(c); 1275. Addressing law enforcement personnel, the Ninth Circuit held: “Pursuant to
3
traditional tort law principles of causation, which we apply to § 1983 claims, … a judicial officer‟s
4
exercise of independent judgment in the course of his official duties is a superseding cause that
5
breaks the chain of causation linking law enforcement personnel to the officer‟s decision…”
6
Galen, 477 F.3d at 663 (internal citations omitted).
7
“When a person is detained in custody on a criminal charge prior to conviction for want
8
of bail, that person is entitled to an automatic review of the order fixing the amount of bail by the
9
judge or magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense. That review shall be held not later than five
days from the time of the original order fixing the amount of bail on the original accusatory
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
pleading. The defendant may waive this review.” Cal. Penal Code § 1270.2. Thereafter, “the
12
issue of appropriate bail may be raised at various times throughout the criminal proceedings.” In
13
re Weiner, 32 Cal.App.4th at 444, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 172(citing Cal. Penal Code §§ 1269b, 1269c,
14
1273, 1277, 1476, 1538.5(k)).
15
16
b.
Application to Facts
The basis for Plaintiffs‟ claim for denial of a prompt bail hearing is opaque. Plaintiffs have
17
not alleged when bail was set or that bail was not set, the amount of bail that was set, any facts
18
showing that the amount was excessive, the conclusion that the amount was excessive, or whether
19
they took any action to reduce the bail. It appears that Plaintiffs‟ theory is as follows: (1)
20
Defendant did not provide counsel at the first appearance; as a result (2) Defendant did not seek a
21
reduction in bail at the first appearance; and, as a further result (3) Plaintiffs were unable to seek a
22
reduction of bail until at least five to thirteen days later, when Defendant provided counsel at the
23
second appearance. This theory does not state a claim on which relief can be granted.
24
First, assuming Plaintiffs have pled a violation of federal law, Plaintiffs have not pled facts
25
that give rise to the plausible inference that Defendant‟s conduct caused them any harm. See
26
Galen, 477 F.3d at 663 (“we apply [traditional tort principles of causation] to § 1983 claims”).
27
That is, Plaintiffs have not pled that, if Defendant had (1) provided counsel at the first appearance;
28
and (2) sought a reduction in bail, Defendant would have obtained a reduction in bail such that
30
1
2
Plaintiffs would have been able to secure release.
Second, Plaintiffs have not pled a violation of the Eighth Amendment. That is, Plaintiffs
3
have not pled their bail was enhanced for purposes unauthorized by California law or that the
4
amount of bail was excessive in light of the valid purposes for which it was set. See id. at 661.
5
Third, Plaintiffs have not pled a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment predicated on any interest provided by state law. In their briefing, Plaintiffs point
7
only to California Penal Code § 1270.1. They argue that § 1270.1 entitles them to a bail hearing,
8
with counsel that is appointed within 48 hours. Opposition, 20. Whether or not this
9
characterization is accurate, and whether or not Plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to allege a
10
violation of the statute, California Penal Code § 1270.1 does not create a liberty interest that is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
cognizable under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the statute
12
concerns a hearing before which the arrestee, arrested for an enumerated offense, “may be released
13
on bail in an amount either more or less than the amount contained in the schedule of bail for the
14
offense, or may be released on his or her own recognizance.” See Cal. Penal Code § 1270.1. The
15
statute at issue is procedural, it mandates no substantive outcome. See Marsh, 680 F.3d at 1156;
16
Carver, 558 F.3d at 875.
17
Plaintiffs also argue that the right to a prompt bail hearing is protected directly by the due
18
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that “the loss of liberty occasioned
19
by excessive bail is a grievous loss entitling a defendant to 14th Amendment due process
20
protection.” Opposition, 19 (emphasis omitted). As noted above, Plaintiffs have not alleged that
21
any bail imposed was excessive. Nor have they cited authority holding that a delay of five to
22
thirteen days in a bail hearing would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs‟ fourth cause
23
of action is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
24
C.
Remaining State Law Claims
25
Under state law, Plaintiffs seek damages for an alleged violation of the California Unruh
26
Civil Rights Act and seek a writ of mandate to compel Defendant to comply with California
27
Government Code § 27706. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq., 52, 52.1; Cal. Gov. Code § 27706.
28
The Court has jurisdiction over this action on the basis of the federal questions raised by the
31
1
Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court‟s jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims
2
relies on its supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Having dismissed all claims over
3
which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over
4
the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiffs‟ fifth and sixth causes of action are
5
DISMISSED with leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
6
V.
CONCLUSION
7
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs‟ Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: May 8, 2013
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
_________________________________
12
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?