Medinger v. Arnold et al

Filing 28

ORDER: Granting Motion to Dismiss 19 . All claims against defendant Bridges are dismissed. Signed on 7/5/2011 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
RONNIE SCOTT MEDINGER,
Case No. 11-3014 -HO

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

TREVOR ARNOLD, City of Medford
Police Officer, in his individual
and official capacities; JAMES
BARRINGER, City of Medford
Police Officer, in his individual
and official capacities; THE CITY
OF MEDFORD, a public entity;
RACHAEL BRIDGES, Jackson County
Assistant District Attorney, in
her individual capacities;
JACKSON COUNTY, a public entity,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
On February 3, 2011, pro se plaintiff Ronnie Medinger
(Medinger) filed a civil rights complaint against defendants City
of Medford Police Officer Trevor Arnold; City of Medford Police
1 - ORDER

Officer James Barringer; the City of Medford; Jackson County
Assistant District Attorney Rachael Bridges and Jackson County.
[#2].

The complaint alleges that on February 9, 2009, plaintiff

was arrested without probable cause and placed in custody where
he remained from February 9, 2009, until April 17, 2009.
p.3,~

12].

[#2-

Medinger alleges that on April 2, 2009, he appeared

before the Honorable Timothy Barnack who ruled he was arrested
without probable cause.

[#2-p. 4,

~

17 J.

This ruling was

allegedly affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals on April 28,
2011.

[#2-p.4,~~

$500,000 damages.

18 19].

Medinger seeks declaratory relief and

[#2-p.5,~~

24-30].

Defendant Bridges moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim.

[#19] .

DISCUSSION
Defendant Bridges moves to dismiss all claims against her,
with prejudice, arguing that plaintiff has failed to articulate a
cognizable legal theory and his claims against her are barred by
prosecutorial immunity.

[#19; #20].

A Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6) is proper
only where there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the
absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable theory.
Balisteri v. ·Pacific Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696,699 (9 th

Cir.1990).

The issue

2 - ORDER

not whether the plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits but if the complaint is sufficient to
entitle the plaintiff to proceed beyond the pleadings in an
attempt to establish his claim.
45, 48 (9 th Cir 1978).

De La Cruz v. Torrey, 582 F.2d

Under these standards, leave to amend a

deficient complaint must be granted " ... [u]nless it is
absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defects."
v. Dep't of Corrections,
2....

Lucas

66 F.3d 245, 248 (9 th Cir. 1995).

Background:

The following are contentions set forth in plaintiff's
complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that on February 9, 2009, he "was

arrested without probable cause by officer Barringer when
plaintiff was walking down the street southbound on Riverside
road in Medford, Oregon."

[#2-p.3,~

12].

Plaintiff alleges that

Officer Barringer then "drove plaintiff to the scene of an
alleged crime where officer Arnold illegally searched plaintiff."
[#2-p.3,~

13].

The officers then took plaintiff to the Jackson

county jail where he was "booked . . . for a parole violation."
[#2-p.3,~

13 1 ] .

Bridges secured an indictment against plaintiff

on February 22, 2009.

[#2-p.3,~

15].

Plaintiff remained in

custody from February 9, 2009 through April 17, 2009.
16].

[#2-p. 4, ~

On April 2, 2009, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge

Timothy Barnack found there was no probable cause to arrest

13.

Plaintiff's complaint contains two paragraphs numbered
This is the second paragraph 13.
3 - ORDER

plaintiff.

[#2-p.4,~

17]. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Bridges appealed that ruling which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals on April 28, 2010.

[#2-p.4,~~

18-19J.

Prosecutorial Immunity:

~

Plaintiff asserts claims against all defendants of Fourth,
Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations

~resulting

[fromJ his [u]nlawful detention, imprisonment and malicious
prosecution·.
Plainti

[#2-p.l,~

1;

p.4,~

22].

's claims against defendant Bridges are entirely

based on her actions initiating and prosecuting plaintiff and
thus, actions undertaken in her capacity as an Assistant District
Attorney for the County of Jackson.

Similarly, any activity that

Ms. Bridges undertook in her capacity as a Jackson County
Assistant District Attorney appealing Judge Barnack's ruling, was
to present the state's case.

Plaintiff does not allege any

action by Ms Bridges that was not solely related to the criminal
proceedings against him.
As a state prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Bridges
has absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Meyers v. Contra Costa Co.

Dept. Soc. Serv., 812 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9 th Cir. 1987);
Imbler

V.

Pachtman, 424, U.S. 409, 430 (1976).

~

also

This immunity is

expressly designed to permit prosecutors to perform their duties
without fear of even the threat of section 1983 litigation.
Meyers. 812 F.2d at 1156.

4 - ORDER

Ms. Bridges' alleged actions in this matter solely involve
her duties as a prosecutor for the County of Jackson in the
judicial and appellate process of a criminal matter and are
therefore actions for which she is entitled to absolute immunity.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, all claims against Defendant Bridges
are dismissed.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#19] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED this

~

day of July, 2011.

D STATES DISTRICT

5 - ORDER