Donohue III v. Antioch Police Department

Background

This is a pro se action under Section 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. The defendants named in the caption include the Antioch Police Department, the County of Contra Costa, the City of Antioch, several officers, and Prosecutor Heather P. Turner.

In November 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part multiple motions to dismiss. After defendants failed in November, December, and January to provide basic information that would allow Donahue to amend his complaint, the court ordered them to provide the information and answer the amended complaint. The court said the case should proceed to discovery and be resolved on the actual facts rather than only on the allegations.

Motion for Reconsideration

Prosecutor Turner and the County moved for reconsideration of the order foreclosing further motions to dismiss. They argued that the reasons for barring additional dismissal motions applied only to other defendants and that they could not understand the claims in the operative amended complaint. They also argued that Turner should be absolutely immune from liability for allegedly failing to provide Brady evidence in Donahue’s state criminal case. Brady evidence refers to evidence that prosecutors are required to disclose to the defense under constitutional due-process rules.

The amended complaint alleged an additional fact: a state-court judge had ordered Turner to provide specific evidence, and Turner allegedly disobeyed that order as well as the underlying duty to disclose evidence. The district court requested a copy of the state-court order and the end date of the state proceedings allegedly prolonged by the violation. Donahue provided the order. Turner and the County responded by arguing the merits of their proposed dismissal motion while also addressing the requested information.

Analysis

The court denied reconsideration because its earlier decision barring further dismissal motions was not manifestly inequitable or erroneous, even after considering the absolute-immunity argument. Absolute immunity is a legal protection that can shield certain government officials from liability for particular functions. The court explained that whether it applies depends on the action performed, and that the defendants had the burden of showing that the protection was justified for the function at issue.

The court treated the alleged disobedience of a specific court order as materially different from a standard allegation that a prosecutor violated the general duty to disclose Brady evidence. It noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had concluded that disobeying a court order is rarely an advocacy function deserving absolute immunity. The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit had not addressed that broader question, and the decisions cited by Turner and the County did not resolve it.

The court concluded that the issue would benefit from a better factual record. It was not prepared to reject the Third Circuit’s reasoning, but it also could not decide the immunity question based only on the allegations and the incomplete record. The court further noted that Turner had not said she would seek dismissal based on qualified immunity, and the County had not identified an independent basis for dismissal.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration, docketed as Dkt. No. 105, was DENIED. The earlier order remained in effect: the defendants could not bring additional motions to dismiss at that stage, and the immunity and related issues could be considered on a summary-judgment record if they were later raised. The order did not finally decide whether absolute immunity applies to Turner’s alleged conduct.