Scott v. Wagstaffe

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 CHRISTOPHER D. SCOTT, 4 Case No. 25-cv-04217-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 5 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 6 STEPHEN M. WAGSTAFFE, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 Plaintiff alleges district attorneys have violated his constitutional rights in various 12 ways. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before the 13 Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). District attorneys are immune from 14 suit under section 1983. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. 15 DISCUSSION 16 A. Standard of Review 17 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 18 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 19 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any 20 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 21 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 22 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 23 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 25 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 26 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 27 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 1 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 2 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 3 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 4 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 5 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 6 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 7 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. Legal Claims 9 Plaintiff alleges District Attorney Steven M. Wagstaffe and Deputy District 10 Attorney Ivan J. Nightengale have violated his rights during their prosecution of him. 11 (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3.) District attorneys are immune from suit under these 12 circumstances. A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from damages 13 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” 14 insofar as he acts within his role as an “advocate for the State” and his actions are 15 “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. 16 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is 17 DISMISSED. 18 CONCLUSION 19 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 20 forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED because he has not submitted a prison trust account 21 statement showing transactions for the last six months. (Dkt. No. 3.) If he submits the 22 proper document, the Court will reconsider his IFP motion. The Clerk shall terminate all 23 pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June _2_4_, 2025 _________________________ 26 RICHARD SEEBORG 27 Chief United States District Judge