Owens v. Wagstaff
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-05864
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Owens v. Wagstaffe, Judge Breyer dismissed the damages complaint because the prosecutor was absolutely immune from this lawsuit.
Kenneth Oliver Owens’s damages claim was dismissed. Stephen M. Wagstaffe was protected from that damages claim by absolute prosecutorial immunity. The opinion separately addressed, but did not decide, any possible request for release from pretrial detention.
What happened
Kenneth Oliver Owens, a pretrial detainee at the San Mateo County Jail who represented himself, sued San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen M. Wagstaffe under a federal civil-rights law. Owens alleged that he was illegally incarcerated and charged with a robbery he did not commit, and he sought $25 million in damages.
The court screened the complaint as required for prisoner lawsuits. It concluded that a prosecutor has complete protection from damages claims for deciding to pursue criminal charges as part of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal case.
The court dismissed Owens’s damages complaint under the prisoner-screening statute because Wagstaffe was immune from damages. Judge Charles R. Breyer also stated that any request for release from pretrial detention must be brought through a separate federal detention challenge, subject to limits while the state criminal proceedings continue.
The detailed version
- Owens v. Wagstaff · No. 3:21-cv-05864
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 16, 2021
Background
Kenneth Oliver Owens, identified as a pretrial detainee at the San Mateo County Jail, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Stephen M. Wagstaffe, identified in the complaint as the San Mateo County District Attorney, as the only defendant. Owens alleged that, on July 9, 2021, he was illegally incarcerated and charged with a robbery that Wagstaffe knew Owens did not commit. Owens sought $25 million in damages.
Screening standard
The court explained that federal law requires preliminary screening of prisoner complaints seeking relief from a governmental officer. The court must dismiss a complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under state authority.
Analysis
The court applied absolute prosecutorial immunity. This doctrine gives a state prosecutor complete immunity from damages liability under § 1983 for conduct involved in pursuing a criminal prosecution while acting as the state’s advocate and in the judicial phase of the criminal process. The court concluded that a prosecutor’s decision to pursue criminal charges falls within that protected role.
Because Owens’s damages claim was based on Wagstaffe’s alleged decision to charge him with robbery, the court held that the claim was barred by absolute immunity. The court therefore dismissed the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), which requires dismissal of prisoner claims seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant.
Disposition
The court dismissed Owens’s complaint for damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In a footnote, the court stated that, to the extent Owens sought release from pretrial detention, he would need to pursue that request through a separate federal petition challenging detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court further stated that federal courts generally must wait until state criminal proceedings are complete and available state remedies have been exhausted, absent special circumstances warranting earlier federal intervention.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.