Collins v. County of Alameda

Background

Kevin Collins alleged that defendants conspired to arrest, search, prosecute, and imprison him for shooting Radajsha Briggs on December 7, 2017. Collins alleged that the defendants ignored changes in Briggs’s description, failed to investigate other witnesses and suspects, withheld video from his cell phone, failed to test his gun, and fabricated evidence through photo lineups. Collins was arrested and imprisoned, then released almost two years later after the charges were dismissed.

Collins’s first amended complaint asserted 28 federal and state causes of action. The federal claims included claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, constitutional claims, claims concerning false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, fabricated and suppressed evidence, and claims seeking to hold Alameda County liable for its policies, training, supervision, or ratification. The state claims included false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, fraud, invasion of privacy, defamation, negligent investigation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other claims. The motion addressed here was filed by Alameda County, District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, and Deputy District Attorney Ashley Carvolth, called the County Defendants in the opinion.

The complaint focused on two specific events involving the prosecutors: a meeting with police to review the investigation and a prosecutor’s alleged approval of the second photo lineup. That lineup used a color photograph of Collins obtained during a traffic stop. Collins alleged that the lineup was improperly suggestive and that the prosecutors knew about problems with an earlier lineup and the way the color photograph had been obtained.

Legal standard

The County Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but required enough factual detail to make liability plausible rather than merely possible. The court found that much of the first amended complaint consisted of conclusory allegations.

Federal claims against the prosecutors

The court held that Nancy O’Malley and Ashley Carvolth had absolute prosecutorial immunity for the decision to prosecute Collins. This immunity protects prosecutors from damages claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions closely connected to initiating or presenting a prosecution. The court also held that the County could not be held liable for the prosecutors’ decision to prosecute because, when preparing to prosecute and prosecuting criminal violations, a district attorney represents the state rather than acting as a county policymaker.

The court reached a different conclusion about the alleged approval of the second photo lineup. The complaint alleged that the prosecutors gave legal advice to police before Collins was arrested and before judicial proceedings began. Relying on Supreme Court decisions distinguishing advocacy from investigation and legal advice to police, the court held that absolute prosecutorial immunity did not apply to that alleged conduct.

The court nevertheless found that qualified immunity applied to the lineup-related federal claims as pleaded. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages liability unless the complaint shows a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established when the conduct occurred. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege what O’Malley and Carvolth knew when they approved the lineup or the factual basis for alleging that they had that knowledge. It also found that the complaint did not plausibly establish that O’Malley herself approved the lineup.

The court dismissed without prejudice the federal claims against the individual prosecutors based on approval of the second photo lineup and allowed Collins to amend. The amended pleading was required to identify the factual basis for alleging that O’Malley, rather than only Carvolth, approved the lineup; what the prosecutors knew at the time; and how they acquired that knowledge.

Federal claims against Alameda County

The court stated that a municipal-liability claim based on a single decision by a final policymaker could theoretically be viable if O’Malley had approved the lineup as the County’s final policymaker. But the complaint did not plausibly allege that O’Malley approved the lineup, what she knew, or how she knew it. The court also found the allegations concerning a County policy or custom, failure to train or supervise, and ratification too conclusory.

The court dismissed with prejudice the federal claims against Alameda County based on the decision to prosecute. It dismissed without prejudice the federal claims against the County based on approval of the second photo lineup and allowed Collins to amend those claims. The opinion states that no plausible municipal-liability claim could be based on the decision to prosecute.

State-law claims

The court held that California Government Code section 820.2 immunized the individual prosecutors from state-law claims based on the discretionary decision whether to prosecute. Because the prosecutors were immune for that decision, the County also had immunity under section 815.2; the court additionally stated that the County could not be liable for that decision because the district attorney represented the state in prosecuting criminal violations.

The court held that California Government Code section 821.6 applied to the malicious-prosecution claim, but not to other claims based on investigative steps before a judicial proceeding. The court reached a different result for the alleged approval of the second photo lineup: it found no statutory immunity for those state-law claims because the lineup occurred before Collins’s arrest and before the decision to prosecute. However, the claims were inadequately pleaded because they did not sufficiently allege what the prosecutors knew or how they knew it.

The court therefore dismissed with prejudice the state claims against the individual prosecutors and the County based on the decision to prosecute. It dismissed without prejudice the state claims against those defendants based on approval of the second photo lineup and allowed Collins to amend them.

Punitive damages and injunctive relief

The court dismissed with prejudice the claim for punitive damages against Alameda County. It dismissed the punitive-damages claim against O’Malley and Carvolth but granted leave to amend because the complaint did not specify facts showing fraud, oppression, or malice by the prosecutors.

The court dismissed the claim for injunctive relief. Collins sought preservation of cell phones, a police-vehicle computer, and other belongings containing alleged exculpatory evidence, and also referred to a request for a declaration of factual innocence. The court stated that a preservation order could be sought in the lawsuit without maintaining a separate claim for injunctive relief. It also stated that a request for a finding of factual innocence appeared to be a matter for the state court that dismissed the criminal case. The court dismissed the injunctive-relief claim without stating that the dismissal was with or without prejudice; it stated that Collins could seek a preservation order.

Disposition

The court granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice the federal and state claims based on the decision to prosecute; dismissed without prejudice the federal and state claims based on approval of the second photo lineup; dismissed the County’s punitive-damages claim with prejudice; dismissed the prosecutors’ punitive-damages claim with leave to amend; and dismissed the injunctive-relief claim. Collins had until February 22, 2021, to file an amended complaint limited to the amendments described in the opinion. The County Defendants had until March 15, 2021, to respond.