Arellano v. Becton

Background

Stephen Arellano filed this civil case after his son, Thomas, was killed by Gerald Delgado. Stephen alleged that the police did not properly investigate the killing; that Contra Costa County prosecutors did not properly investigate, charge, or prosecute Delgado; and that prosecutors entered a plea agreement without consulting Stephen or other family members. He also alleged that Contra Costa County Superior Court judges and the court executive officer mishandled Delgado’s earlier criminal proceedings and the prosecution arising from Thomas’s death. Stephen also named journalist Nate Gartrell, whom he alleged ignored him and wrote what the District Attorney or others wanted.

Stephen proceeded without a lawyer. He asserted a civil-rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, involving alleged violations of due process and familial contact, and a claim under Article I, section 28 of the California Constitution, known as Marsy’s Law. He sought damages and asked the federal court to charge Delgado with murder and require restitution for Thomas’s son.

Claims on Behalf of Other People

The court held that Stephen could represent himself but could not litigate claims for other people or the estate. B.A., Kathryn Clancy, and the estate were dismissed from the case as to all defendants, without prejudice to their ability to bring claims in their own right.

Marsy’s Law and Federal Criminal Statutes

The court held that Marsy’s Law does not create a claim for compensation or damages against the state, its subdivisions or officers, or court officers and employees. The Marsy’s Law claim was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.

The court also held that the federal criminal statutes cited in the complaint could not be asserted by a private plaintiff in a civil action. The claims based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 1829 were dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.

Judicial Defendants

The claims against Judges Mary Ann O’Malley and Edward Weil and Court Executive Officer Kate Bieker concerned actions taken in their official capacities in Delgado’s criminal proceedings and earlier proceedings. The court held that those claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It further held that the claims against Judges Weil and O’Malley were barred by absolute judicial immunity, which protects judges from suits based on their judicial acts even when bad faith or malice is alleged. The court also stated that state officials such as these defendants are not “persons” who can be sued for damages under § 1983.

The court concluded that the requested nonmonetary remedies—having the federal court take jurisdiction over Delgado, charge him with murder, and require restitution—were not legally available to Stephen or within the court’s power to order. The claims against the judicial defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

District Attorney Defendants

The court held that Stephen had no legally protected interest in how Delgado was charged or prosecuted, whether a plea agreement was offered, or whether the agreement was approved. It also held that the prosecutors were absolutely immune for charging, prosecution, preliminary-hearing, probation, and plea-bargaining decisions associated with the judicial process.

The court stated that investigative conduct before judicial proceedings may receive a different form of protection, but found no allegations that the prosecutors engaged in a police-type investigation of Thomas’s killing before Delgado was charged. The claims currently alleged against the District Attorney defendants were dismissed with prejudice because they were associated with the judicial process and barred by immunity. However, the court granted Stephen leave to amend if he could allege facts showing that a prosecutor acted in a way not associated with the judicial process.

The court also explained that a possible equal-protection claim would require facts plausibly showing that the prosecutors treated Stephen differently because of his race. It stated that the current complaint contained no such facts. The court further stated that a substantive-due-process claim based on interference with familial relations would require facts plausibly showing that identified acts by the prosecutors somehow led to Thomas’s death and were not undertaken for the public welfare; the current complaint did not allege those facts.

Detective Loercher

The court declined to dismiss or strike the allegations against Concord police homicide detective Chris Loercher under the rules requiring a short, plain statement or allowing irrelevant material to be stricken. Reading the complaint liberally, the court understood Stephen to allege that Loercher lost or misrepresented possession of a phone recording Thomas’s killing, failed to investigate properly, and failed to speak with family members and other witnesses. The court also declined to dismiss the claims on statute-of-limitations grounds at that stage.

The court held that Stephen could not base a § 1983 claim on loss of familial contact because Delgado’s conduct, not Loercher’s conduct, caused the loss of contact with Thomas. It also found no allegations that Loercher treated Stephen unequally because of race or another protected characteristic. The court concluded that Stephen had not plausibly alleged that Loercher violated one of Stephen’s constitutional rights through the investigation.

Conspiracy and RICO

The court held that conspiracy is not itself a constitutional wrong under § 1983 and that Stephen had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation. It also held that the complaint did not identify facts showing that any defendants conspired to deprive Stephen of a specific right.

To the extent Stephen asserted a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the court held that he had not alleged supporting facts and that the loss of his relationship with Thomas and related personal suffering were not damages supporting a RICO claim. The RICO claim was dismissed with prejudice. The § 1983 conspiracy claim was dismissed without prejudice because Stephen received limited leave to try to allege civil-rights violations against the District Attorney defendants and Loercher.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss. It stated that no claim had successfully been pleaded against the remaining defendants but allowed Stephen 20 days to amend if he could, in good faith, allege facts plausibly stating a claim. The court did not state a disposition for the claim against journalist Nate Gartrell in the portion of the opinion provided, although it stated that the allegations against him did not appear to support a legal claim.