McCullom v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office

Background

Kevin Lee McCullom, an inmate at John Latoracca Correctional Center, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits suits against people acting under state law for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint because it was rambling, did not provide a short and plain statement of his claims, and appeared to lack an arguable basis in fact or law. The court gave him leave to amend and instructed him to provide a short and plain statement.

The amended complaint named the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office in the caption. On the form’s section asking for defendants, McCullom named John Keen, identified as the head of the San Mateo County Probation Office, and Wendy Still, identified as the head of the Alameda County Probation Office.

McCullom alleged that, after his three-year felony probation term ended on January 1, 2018, he was incorrectly listed in San Mateo and Alameda County probation databases. He alleged that this information led Newark City police to search, seize, arrest, and detain him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also alleged that the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office maliciously prosecuted him by repeatedly offering plea agreements after he refused them, and that he was then placed on psychiatric holds and arrested for nine misdemeanors. He stated that the criminal charges were ultimately dismissed. He sought damages and injunctive relief.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statutes. It held that McCullom did not allege facts showing that Keen or Still were the actionable cause of the alleged search, seizure, arrest, and detention. The court said McCullom did not identify a law requiring them to regularly audit or update the probation databases. Even assuming such a duty existed, the court found that the alleged failure to update the databases was not sufficiently connected to the injuries because the end of McCullom’s probation, by itself, would not make the police conduct unconstitutional.

The court also explained that police may have probable cause when officers reasonably rely on information in a widely accepted probation database, even if the information is ultimately incorrect. The court noted that the police conduct might have violated the Fourth Amendment for other reasons, but those possible reasons would not be connected to Keen or Still based on the allegations in this complaint.

As to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, the court held that the damages claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court determined that prosecutors were acting as state officials when deciding whether to prosecute and prosecuting criminal cases. It also held that McCullom’s request for a temporary and permanent injunction did not fit the exception allowing prospective relief against an ongoing or impending unconstitutional state action because he did not allege an ongoing violation and was not then being prosecuted by that office.

The court further noted that McCullom had raised similar allegations in earlier related actions. It stated that repetitive litigation of virtually identical claims may be dismissed as malicious under the prisoner-screening statute.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. It denied McCullom leave to amend because amendment would be futile, including because the claims against Keen and Still lacked a sufficient causal connection and the claims against the District Attorney’s Office were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Judge Jon S. Tigar directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and against McCullom and to close the case.