Turner v. Orange County District Attorney

Background

James Turner, who was detained at Orange County Jail and represented himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against Orange County District Attorney David M. Hoovler and Assistant District Attorney Alexandra Pietropaolo. The court had previously allowed Turner to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Turner alleged that Pietropaolo knowingly made an unidentified false statement while conducting grand-jury proceedings on behalf of Hoovler. He alleged that the statement caused his freedom to be taken and subjected him to excessive bail. He sought compensation for his lost liberty, including $150 for each day he had spent in jail. He also asked the federal court to dismiss the state criminal indictment pending against him.

Court’s analysis

Prosecutorial immunity. The court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits seeking damages for actions within their official duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. Because Turner’s allegations concerned the defendants’ conduct during grand-jury proceedings, the court concluded that both defendants were immune from the requested monetary relief. It dismissed the § 1983 claims on that basis under the prisoner-screening statute.

Supervisory liability. The court separately ruled that Turner did not state a claim against Hoovler based only on the allegation that Pietropaolo worked for him. A government official cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because the official supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Hoovler for failure to state a claim.

Request to dismiss the state indictment. The court explained that a request affecting the fact or length of confinement generally must be brought through a petition challenging detention rather than a civil-rights lawsuit. A state pretrial detainee may, in some circumstances, seek that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but must first exhaust available state-court remedies. Because Turner’s complaint did not allege that he had exhausted those remedies, the court declined to treat part of his civil-rights complaint as a § 2241 petition. The court stated that the order did not prevent him from pursuing such relief after exhausting his grounds in state court.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court declined to give Turner permission to amend because it determined that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii), directed the clerk to enter judgment, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion is signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood.