Randle v. Bell ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAMELLO RANDLE, Case No. 23-cv-05801-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING 9 v. MOTION FOR SUBPOENA 10 KEVIN BELL, et al., 11 Defendants. (ECF No. 3) 12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, an inmate in the Contra Costa County Jail who is proceeding without 14 representation by an attorney, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the 15 Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office and three Deputy District Attorneys involved in 16 his prosecution on murder charges in Contra Costa County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) For the 17 reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed because it does not state a claim that is 18 capable of judicial review and determination. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff alleges in September and October 2022, prior to the beginning of his criminal 21 trial, he filed two motions under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (ECF No. 1 at 12.) He 22 requested Defendants provide him with any exculpatory evidence and any evidence to impeach 23 Antioch Police Officers who were prosecution witnesses. (Id.) Defendants failed to turn over 24 evidence that these officers were under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 25 perjury, however, which resulted in a mistrial. (Id.) 26 According to the complaint in another civil rights case filed more recently by Plaintiff, as 27 well as the docket in his criminal case, he was retried and convicted of first-degree murder on 1 6); State of California v. Randle, No. 04002000347 (Contra Costa County Sup. Ct.) (docket entry 2 of March 22, 2024, https://odyportal.cc-courts.org/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0).1 3 Plaintiff claims “mental abuse, deprivation of my right to a fair trial, public defamation of 4 character, targeting me[,] pain and suffering, cruel and unusual punishment, violations [of] Penal 5 Code 141(c)[, and] racial discrimination.” (ECF No. 1 at 10.) He seeks money damages. (Id. at 6 15.) 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW 8 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 9 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 10 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 11 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 12 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 13 § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by unrepresented parties must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 14 Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 16 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 17 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 18 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to state 19 a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 20 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 21 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 22 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 23 550 U.S. 544, 555 (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for 24 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 25 1 Courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 26 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Court orders and other court documents are proper 27 subjects of judicial notice, id., as are records of court proceedings, Dawson v. Mahoney, 451 F.3d 1 LEGAL CLAIMS 2 Plaintiffs claim for damages against Defendants for failing to turn over exculpatory 3 evidence in violation of Brady does not state a claim that is capable of judicial determination. 4 State prosecuting attorneys enjoy absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 5 their conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as they act within their role as an 6 || “advocate for the State,” and their actions are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the 7 criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). “A prosecutor’s decision 8 not to turn over exculpatory material before trial, during trial, or after conviction is a violation of 9 due process under Brady []. It is, nonetheless, an exercise of the prosecutorial function and 10 || entitles the prosecutor to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages.” Broam v. Bogan, 320 ll F.3d. 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing cases). Defendants are absolutely immune from 12 || Plaintiff's suit for damages for allegedly failing to meet their obligations under Brady to turn over 5 13 evidence that may have been exculpatory or used to impeach witnesses. Accordingly, the 14 || complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim that is capable of judicial 3 15 determination. 16 CONCLUSION 3 17 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim that is 18 || capable of judicial review and determination. The dismissal is without leave to amend and with 19 || prejudice. In light of this conclusion, Plaintiff's motion to issue subpoenas for any complaints or 20 criminal cases against Defendants (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 21 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 22 This order terminates docket number 3. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: May 28, 2024 25 | 5 | | 26 ne JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 28