Barrios v. Contra Costa County District Attorney
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-04594
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Barrios v. Contra Costa County District Attorney, Judge Seeborg dismissed the action on immunity, pleading, and venue grounds while granting amendment.
Kevin Lee Barrios and the defendants named in his latest complaint, including the Contra Costa County District Attorney, the State of California, Google Corp., the feminists of Stanford University, the Richmond Police Department, the El Cerrito Police Department, and the San Diego District Attorney.
What happened
In Barrios v. Contra Costa County District Attorney, Kevin Lee Barrios filed five civil-rights complaints in less than two months, and the court found his latest complaint difficult to follow. It listed several defendants but alleged facts only about the Contra Costa County District Attorney and criminal proceedings.
The court dismissed the claims against the district attorney because prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken while pursuing a criminal case. It dismissed the other named defendants because the complaint made no allegations against them, and it also stated that California was protected by constitutional immunity. The court said any federal suit against the San Diego Police Department belonged in the Southern District of California and that claims against the El Cerrito and Richmond Police Departments had to be filed in separate cases.
Judge Seeborg granted Barrios’s motion to amend, but directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the file. The court’s order was dated January 5, 2023.
The detailed version
- Barrios v. Contra Costa County District Attorney · No. 3:22-cv-04594
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 5, 2023
Background
Kevin Lee Barrios filed five complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in less than two months. Section 1983 provides a way to sue for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. The court described the complaints as disorderly and difficult to follow.
The latest complaint named the Contra Costa County District Attorney, the State of California, Google Corp., the feminists of Stanford University, the Richmond Police Department, the El Cerrito Police Department, and the San Diego District Attorney. The court said the complaint contained allegations only against the Contra Costa County District Attorney concerning criminal court proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court dismissed the claims against the Contra Costa County District Attorney because a state prosecutor has absolute immunity from damages liability under Section 1983 for conduct undertaken while pursuing a criminal prosecution as the state’s advocate and closely connected to the judicial phase of the case.
The court dismissed the other named defendants because Barrios made no allegations against them. The opinion also states that an individual does not act under color of state law, which is an essential element of a Section 1983 claim. It states that California is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment when the suit seeks damages or injunctive relief against the state or its agencies.
The order further states that a federal suit against the San Diego Police Department had to be brought in the Southern District of California rather than this district. It said that any suit against the El Cerrito Police Department or Richmond Police Department had to be filed as a separate civil-rights action.
Disposition
The court granted Barrios’s motion to amend his complaint. It nevertheless directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file. The order is a procedural ruling because the court disposed of the action based on immunity, missing allegations, and venue-related grounds rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.