Adams v. Kerr

Background

Adrian O. Adams brought this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials associated with the Santa Cruz district attorney’s office and sheriff’s department, court-appointed or private attorneys, a law firm, and Dr. Thomas J. Reidy. He appeared to seek damages for alleged violations during state criminal proceedings.

The Second Amended Complaint named 16 defendants and referred to several Santa Cruz Superior Court case numbers. Adams alleged, among other things, that deputies assaulted him, planted drugs, lied at hearings, and fabricated charges; that Deputy Daren Kerr attended and recorded a hearing on a motion concerning defense counsel; that prosecutors and defense attorneys engaged in misconduct; and that Dr. Reidy declared him unfit for trial.

The court had previously allowed Adams to amend after finding that his First Amended Complaint did not adequately explain the alleged violations and that the claims could undermine state criminal convictions, potentially implicating the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. The prior order required Adams to identify the criminal case connected to each alleged violation, state whether it resulted in a conviction, and state whether the conviction had been reversed, invalidated, or called into question by a court order concerning detention.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered four motions to dismiss. It agreed that the Second Amended Complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it was difficult to determine which defendant allegedly took which action and which events supported which claims. The court also found that Adams had not followed the earlier instructions concerning the underlying criminal cases and the possible Heck bar. These were independent grounds for dismissal.

The court separately addressed the defendants:

- Biggam Christensen & Minsloff, Briscoe, Minsloff, Rogers, and Schwarzbach: The court held that the law firm and attorneys were private attorneys, not state actors for purposes of § 1983. Their alleged conduct occurred within the attorney-client relationship, and Adams did not plausibly allege a conspiracy or joint action with a state actor. All claims against them were dismissed without leave to amend. - Rosell and Hung: The court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit for actions taken in their prosecutorial capacities, including initiating criminal prosecutions. All claims against them were dismissed with prejudice. - Hansen, Yanez, Hart, Santa Cruz County, and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office: The court found that Adams made no allegations or claims against these defendants. The claims were dismissed without leave to amend. - Kerr: Claims based on alleged events in 2006 and 2011 were dismissed without leave to amend because they were filed outside the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims. Claims based on alleged 2019 events—including attending and recording a hearing and making statements about parking-sign locations—were dismissed with leave to amend because the current allegations did not identify a sufficient federal constitutional or statutory violation, but the court could not say that additional facts could not cure the problem. - Stevens: The court held that the private court-appointed attorney was not acting under color of state law, and that Adams’s conspiracy allegations were conclusory. All claims against Stevens were dismissed without leave to amend. - Dr. Reidy: The court held that Adams did not plausibly allege that Reidy, who performed a mental-health evaluation, conspired with a state actor. All claims against Reidy were dismissed without leave to amend. - Eric Dumars: Dumars had not been served because service attempts at the address Adams supplied were unsuccessful. The court ordered Adams to provide more information that would allow service. If Adams failed to do so within 30 days, the claims against Dumars would be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend in part and with leave to amend in part. It ordered Adams to file an amended complaint within 30 days, limited to the amendments permitted by the order. The court warned that failure to correct the identified defects, or filing an amendment beyond the permitted scope, would result in dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court vacated the scheduled hearing dates. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.