Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 10–56787.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 10–56787.,10–56787.
• Citation: 715 F.3d 750
• Parties: Thomas Lee GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH; John Henry Miller, in his individual and official capacity; William Collette, in his individual and official capacity; Logan Wren, in his individual and official capacity; William MacLyman, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants, and County of Los Angeles, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

715 F.3d 750

Thomas Lee GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v. CITY OF LONG BEACH; John Henry Miller, in his individual and official capacity; William Collette, in his individual and official capacity; Logan Wren, in his individual and official capacity; William MacLyman, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants,andCounty of Los Angeles, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 10–56787.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 2012.

Filed May 8, 2013.

Barrett S. Litt and Lindsay B. Battles, Litt, Estuar & Kitson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Tomas A. Guterres and Catherine M. Mathers, Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP, South Pasadena, CA; Timothy T. Coates and Cynthia E. Tobisman, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:04–cv–09692–AHM–E.

Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and GLORIA M. NAVARRO, District Judge.^*

OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

We consider in this case whether a district attorney acts as a local or a state official when establishing policy and training related to the use of jailhouse informants. We find that, as to the policies at issue here, the district attorney was acting as a final policymaker for the County of Los Angeles. We thus reverse the district court's grant of the motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand the case.¹

I

Thomas Goldstein spent 24 years in prison after being convicted for murder based largely upon the perjured testimony of an unreliable jailhouse informant, the aptronymic Edward Fink. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 339, 129 S.Ct. 855, 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009); see also Thompson v. Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 1053–1054 (9th Cir.1997) (describing Fink as a “perennial informant,” and describing his exploits in some detail), rev'd,523 U.S. 538, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998).

Fink was a heroin addict and convicted felon who had previously received reduced sentences by testifying in other cases and received a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony against Goldstein. Goldstein v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 218, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 213, 195 P.3d 588, 590 (2008). Some prosecutors in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office allegedly knew about Fink's history, but failed to inform the prosecutors trying Goldstein's case or Goldstein's counsel that Fink had testified before or that he received a benefit for testifying against Goldstein, and Fink lied on the stand when he was asked about previous assistance given or benefits received. Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 339, 129 S.Ct. 855.

Goldstein was convicted almost solely on the basis of Fink's testimony. The California Supreme Court explained the evidence against Goldstein:

In 1979 Goldstein was an engineering student and Marine Corps veteran with no criminal history. He became a murder suspect after an eyewitness to an unrelated shooting saw the gunman enter Goldstein's apartment building. No witness or forensic evidence connected Goldstein with the murder victim, but Long Beach police detectives showed Goldstein's photograph, among others, to Loran Campbell, an eyewitness to the homicide. Campbell did not recognize anyone in the photo lineup, and Goldstein did not match Campbell's description of the suspect. However, a detective asked if Goldstein could have been the person Campbell saw running from the scene. Campbell said it was possible, though he was not certain.

Goldstein was arrested and placed in a jail cell with Edward Floyd Fink, a heroin addict and convicted felon. At Goldstein's trial, Fink testified that Goldstein said he was in jail because he shot a man in a dispute over money.

Goldstein v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 218, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 213, 195 P.3d 588, 590 (2008). Campbell later recanted his identification of Goldstein, leaving Fink's testimony as the basis for the conviction. Id.

In 1998, Goldstein filed a habeas petition in the Central District of California. Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 339, 129 S.Ct. 855. At an evidentiary hearing, the district court agreed that Fink had lied and that it might have made a difference “if the prosecution had told Goldstein's lawyer that Fink had received prior rewards in return for favorable testimony[.]” Id. at 339, 129 S.Ct. 855. The court ordered the state to grant Goldstein a new trial or release him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. The state decided to release Goldstein, who had already served 24 years of his sentence. Id.

Goldstein then filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 340, 129 S.Ct. 855. As relevant here, Goldstein claims that the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office failed to create any system for the Deputy District Attorneys handling criminal cases to access information pertaining to the benefits provided to jailhouse informants and other impeachment information, and failed to train Deputy District Attorneys to disseminate this information. Goldstein explains that the district attorney's office was on notice that jailhouse informants were falsely testifying and considered the creation of a system to track benefits provided jailhouse informants and other impeachment information, but failed to create any system.

In 2009, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the Los Angeles County district attorney and chief deputy district attorney had absolute immunity from suit for Goldstein's claims. While the Supreme Court “agree[d] with Goldstein that, in making these claims, he attack[ed] the office's administrative procedures,” it concluded that “[t]hose claims focus upon a certain kind of administrative obligation—a kind that itself is directly connected with the conduct of a trial.” Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 344, 129 S.Ct. 855. Therefore, the Court held that the Los Angeles County district attorney and chief deputy district attorney were absolutely immune from Goldstein's claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to a failure to properly train prosecutors, failed to properly supervise prosecutors, and failed to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. Id. at 339, 129 S.Ct. 855.

On remand, the district court entered judgment in favor of Los Angeles County district attorney John Van de Kamp and chief deputy district attorney Curt Livesay.² As to the County of Los Angeles' motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court explained that this Court has not had occasion to address the claims at issue here, but “reluctantly concluded” that the district attorney acts on behalf of the state, rather than the county, in setting policy related to jailhouse informants “in light of Weiner [ v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.2000) ] and the two decisions of [the Northern District of California] construing it.” Therefore, the district court granted the County of Los Angeles' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2012). For purposes of our review, “[a]ll material allegations in a complaint must be taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Geraci v. Homestreet Bank, 347 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir.2003).

II

“Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a local government may be liable for constitutional torts committed by its officials according to municipal policy, practice, or custom.” Weiner v. San Diego Cnty., 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)). “To hold a local government liable for an official's conduct, a plaintiff must first establish that the official (1) had final policymaking authority concerning the action ... at issue and (2) was the policymaker for the local governing body for the purposes of the particular act.” Id. at 1028 (citing McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., 520 U.S. 781, 785, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997)). States and state officials acting in their official capacities cannot be sued for damages under Section 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); see Ceballos v. Garcetti, 361 F.3d 1168, 1183 n. 11 (9th Cir.2004).

Here, all parties agree that the district attorney is the relevant policymaker. Thus, the viability of Goldstein's claim turns on whether the Los Angeles District Attorney acted here as a policymaker for the state or for the county. This determination is made on a function-by-function approach by analyzing under state law the organizational structure and control over the district attorney. See McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., 520 U.S. 781, 785–86, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997).

A

In McMillian, the Supreme Court first set out the procedure to determine whether a policymaker acts on behalf of the state or local government. The case involved the sheriff of Monroe County, Alabama, and the Court sought to determine whether he acted as a state or local official when intimidating a witness into making false statements and suppressing exculpatory evidence. 520 U.S. at 784, 117 S.Ct. 1734. The Court was clear that the inquiry is not undertaken in a “categorical, ‘all or nothing’ manner,” but rather that the “cases on the liability of local governments under § 1983 instruct us to ask whether governmental officials are final policymakers for the local government in a particular area, or on a particular issue.” Id. at 785, 117 S.Ct. 1734 (citations omitted).

The Court explained that the “inquiry is dependent on an analysis of state law.” Id. at 786, 117 S.Ct. 1734. It looked first to the Alabama Constitution, and concluded that “the constitutional provisions concerning sheriffs, the historical...