Ontiberos v. Ladner

• Decision Date: 05 November 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 15-1179-JTM
• Parties: Robert C. Ontiberos, Plaintiff, v. Christine M.T. Ladner, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

Robert C. Ontiberos, Plaintiff,
v.
Christine M.T. Ladner, Defendant.

Case No. 15-1179-JTM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

November 5, 2015

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Ontiberos is a convicted sex offender, and the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) commenced civil commitment proceedings against him under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 59-29a01, in 2007. In the course of that proceeding, Ontiberos stipulated that there was probable cause to believe he was a predator as defined by the Act, and he was transferred from the custody of the KDOC to the Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility. In 2008, a jury agreed that Ontiberos was a sexually violent predator. Ontiberos appealed this determination, and the Kansas Supreme Court ultimately determined that Ontiberos's trial counsel was ineffective, In re Ontiberos, 295 Kan. 10, 287 P.3d 855 (2012), and remanded the proceedings for a new trial.

The Supreme Court issued no directive for the immediate release of Ontiberos pending a new trial. On April 12, 2013, counsel for Ontiberos filed various motions seeking

Page 2

his release on various legal grounds, but not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to the probable cause determination. The court conducted no hearing on Ontiberos's confinement pursuant to Section 59-29a08. Ultimately, Ontiberos was released after Kansas Assistant Attorney General Christine Ladner entered her appearance in the action in 2014 and filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding.

In the present action, Ontiberos has sued Ladner for illegal seizure and violation of his right to a speedy trial under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. Ladner has moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, improper service of process, improper collateral attack to the decision of a state court, the statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim. For the reasons provided herein, the court hereby grants the Motion to Dismiss.

The Eleventh Amendment bars any claim for damages against Ladner in her official capacity, see Hernandez v. Conde, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1152 (D. Kan. 2006), just as the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity shields the defendant for claims such as those advanced here. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).

Ontiberos argues (Dkt. 11, at 4-6) that the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity cannot shield Lander because he was held under a civil commitment proceeding. But the doctrine is not limited to proceedings which are criminal in name; it also applies to actions undertaken by state attorneys which are "analogous to those of a prosecutor in initiating and pursuing civil and administrative enforcement proceedings." Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 908 (10th Cir. 2000).

Page 3

To distinguish between actions that are intimately associated with the judicial process and those that are investigative or administrative

...