Coleman v. Ortiz

Background

Wendell Coleman filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for people proceeding without paying the filing fee. Coleman described events involving his state criminal prosecution, including alleged false charges, improper rulings, inadequate investigations, an arrest, searches, threats, and other alleged misconduct. He also requested a temporary restraining order seeking, among other things, to stop alleged harassment by local law enforcement, suspend his state-court sentence, prevent additional accusations, and change child-custody arrangements.

Screening of the Complaint

The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim against any particular defendant and dismissed it, while granting leave to amend so Coleman could try to correct the identified problems.

The claims against District Attorneys Haley, McLeod, and Lind were dismissed without leave to amend. The court held that the prosecutors had absolute prosecutorial immunity for the alleged charging decisions, trial conduct, use of allegedly false testimony, and related conduct connected to Coleman’s criminal prosecution.

The claims against Judge Ortiz were dismissed because judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for acts performed in their judicial capacity, even when the alleged acts were malicious, erroneous, or beyond the judge’s authority. The court identified one possible exception: Coleman’s allegation that Judge Ortiz participated in an “attempted kidnapping.” The court granted leave to amend that allegation so Coleman could provide facts, if he had them, plausibly showing that the judge participated in such conduct.

The claim against probation officer Butler was dismissed without leave to amend. The court held that preparing probation reports for use by state courts is a function closely connected to the judicial process and therefore protected by absolute immunity from damages liability under Section 1983.

The claims against Deputy Bohlander and Officer Haggmark, based on alleged failures to investigate Coleman’s reports or evidence, were dismissed without leave to amend. The court explained that the Constitution generally does not require the government to provide investigative or protective assistance, and found that neither the “special relationship” nor “state-created danger” exception applied to the alleged facts.

As to Deputy Branco, the court found that the complaint did not provide enough detail to determine whether the January 2018 entry to serve an arrest warrant involved an unreasonable search or seizure. The court granted leave to amend that allegation. The court also granted leave to amend Coleman’s separate allegation that Branco appeared in May 2017 with an intent to shoot him, finding that allegation too conclusory and speculative as pleaded.

The claims against Deputy Lichau were also found insufficient as pleaded. Coleman had alleged a false arrest, an illegal search, failure to respect his right to remain silent, and baseless traffic-related charges. The court found that he had not alleged facts plausibly showing that the arrest lacked probable cause. It also explained that questioning in violation of the Miranda warning rules does not itself create a damages claim unless the resulting statements are used in a criminal case, and that Coleman had not alleged facts establishing that circumstance or a separate due-process violation. The court granted leave to amend these allegations.

The allegations against seven unnamed deputies, who allegedly threatened to “kick [his] ass,” failed to state a claim because the complaint did not suggest more than a verbal insult. The court explained that Coleman would need to identify any alleged wrongdoers if he amended the complaint. The court also found that the Napa County Sheriff’s Office and Napa Police Department were not liable merely because individual officers allegedly worked for them. It explained that a local government may be liable under Section 1983 only when a specific policy or custom caused a constitutional violation, and that the complaint did not adequately allege such a policy or custom.

The court dismissed claims against additional defendants whom Coleman merely listed without making allegations against them, including Judge Young; deputies Kuhn, Powers, and Dameron; and police officers Potter, Martinez, Delasi, and Cole.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court denied Coleman’s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order. It found that he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because of the complaint’s pleading deficiencies, had not provided enough support to show likely and immediate irreparable harm, and sought custody-related relief beyond the allegations in the complaint. The court also noted that the defendants had not yet been served, and Coleman had not shown that emergency relief without notice was justified.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Coleman was required to file a complete amended complaint by July 15, 2020, using the case caption and number in the order and marking the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The order stated that failure to file the amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action. It also addressed filing-fee or fee-waiver requirements and instructed that future filings be double-spaced and signed.