Parsons v. San Jose Police Department

Background

Jason Thomas Parsons, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by people acting under state law. He sued San Jose police officers, state-court judges, court clerks, public defenders, and others involved in his arrest, trial, and conviction.

His allegations included false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of bail, an allegedly unconstitutional 150-year sentence, denial of a speedy trial, trial errors, and excessive force during his arrest.

Screening and legal claims

Because Parsons was a prisoner seeking relief from government entities or officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also said it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleading generously, but the complaint still had to include enough facts to make a plausible claim.

The court applied Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a prisoner generally cannot seek damages under Section 1983 for conduct that, if found unlawful, would necessarily show that the prisoner’s conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s order granting a writ of habeas corpus. The court found that Parsons had made no such showing, so his claims concerning his arrest, prosecution, bail, sentence, trial, and related matters were barred.

The court added that, even without the Heck bar, many claims would fail for other reasons. It stated that state judges are absolutely immune from damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity; prosecutors have absolute immunity for conduct closely connected to prosecuting a criminal case; public defenders do not act under state law when performing traditional defense-lawyer functions; court clerks have immunity for tasks integral to the judicial process; and witnesses are absolutely immune from liability for testimony in earlier court proceedings, even allegedly false testimony.

The court determined that Parsons’s allegations that unknown San Jose police officers used excessive force during his May 2020 arrest were not barred by Heck. Before those claims could proceed, however, Parsons had to provide the officers’ names, describe each officer’s individual actions, or provide enough information to identify them.

Motions and disposition

The court denied Parsons’s motion seeking dismissal under Heck without prejudice or a stay of proceedings. It also denied his motion for preservation of evidence.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. The conclusion set March 6, 2023, as the filing deadline, while the introduction stated March 1, 2023. The order required the amended complaint to use the case caption and number in the order, state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, use the court’s form, remain within 10 pages including attachments, and include all claims and defendants Parsons wished to pursue. The order said that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants.