State v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
| Decision Date | 27 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-SA,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona; Grant Woods, Attorney General and his wife, Jane Doe Woods; Thomas McClory, Assistant Attorney General, and his wife, Jane Doe McClory; Department of Health Services, et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, The Honorable Jeffery S. Cates, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge, Corliss FORD, a single woman, Real Party in Interest. 96-0009. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Petitioners have filed a petition for special action seeking review of the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. They argue that they are immune from suit and that the claims are time-barred. Because petitioners do not have an adequate remedy by appeal on these issues, see City of Phoenix v. Yarnell, 184 Ariz. 310, 315, 909 P.2d 377, 382 (1995) (immunity); Lim v. Superior Court, 126 Ariz. 481, 482, 616 P.2d 941, 942 (App.1980) (statute of limitations), we have entered an order accepting jurisdiction over this petition, with a written decision to follow. For the following reasons, we grant relief in part and deny relief in part.
Corliss Ford operated an adult care facility. On June 12, 1992, the Department of Health Services ("DHS") through the Office of the Attorney General filed a three-count complaint against Ford, alleging that she I) was operating a health care institution without a license, II) was operating an unregistered residential care home, and III) had abused and/or neglected two of the elderly residents in her facility. The Attorney General and DHS sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Ford from operating any type of residential care facility until she had satisfied the statutory licensing requirements. The trial court granted injunctions based upon the licensing and registration allegations of Counts I and II. Following trial, though, the court found that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, and therefore denied any relief based upon Count III. The court also found that the Attorney General and DHS had failed to disclose certain information that had been requested by Ford, which prejudiced her defense.
On June 28, 1994, Ford filed a civil suit against the State, Attorney General Grant Woods and his wife, Assistant Attorney General Thomas McClory and his wife, and DHS (collectively, "defendants"), asserting the following claims:
1. Violation of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from the Attorney General and DHS's a) continuance of the prosecution despite allegedly learning on June 28, 1993 that the claims were "baseless" and b) nondisclosure of information;
2. Malicious prosecution, based on continuing the prosecution;
3. Abuse of process, based on continuing the prosecution;
4. Defamation, based upon statements made by Assistant Attorney General Robert Carey on June 12, 1992.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper service, absolute prosecutorial and statutory immunity, and failure to comply with the statute of limitations and Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. ("A.R.S.") section 12-821. 1 By minute entry dated April 24, 1995, the trial court, without reaching defendants' immunity arguments, dismissed the complaint, basing its ruling on A.R.S. section 12-821.
Before the court signed the judgment, however, Ford filed a motion to amend her complaint. The motion to amend sought to amend the complaint by adding a false light invasion of privacy claim, and an additional defamatory statement to her defamation claim, both of which arose from statements made by Carey to the press in January 1994. 2 Because these statements had been made within one year of the filing of her original complaint, Ford argued that the false light and defamation claims were not time-barred by A.R.S. section 12-821. In addition, she sought to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiracy to violate her civil rights, and a prayer for injunctive relief. She argued that these claims and the original § 1983, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process claims were not time-barred because they had not accrued until February 25, 1994, when the State's complaint against her had been finally adjudicated.
Defendants responded that the new defamation and false light claims did not relate back, and thus were barred by A.R.S. section 12-821, because the January 1994 statement had occurred more than one year before Ford filed her motion to amend. They also renewed their argument that the remaining claims were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
The trial court granted the motion to amend, concluding that Ford's false light and defamation claims related back to her original complaint because they arose out of the same transaction: the State's prosecution of the civil action against Ford. It also concluded that Ford's other claims were not barred because Carey's January 1994 statements had been made in a television interview not protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993). 3
Defendants then repeated their arguments in a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Defendants have now brought this special action, arguing that Ford's false light and defamation claims are time-barred and that they are absolutely immune from suit with respect to the remaining claims.
Defendants argue that the trial court erred by not dismissing Ford's § 1983, § 1985(3), malicious prosecution, and abuse of process claims on the grounds of prosecutorial immunity. 4
Prosecutors are generally immune from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacities. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 994-95, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). This immunity is absolute when the prosecutor acts within the scope of his or her authority and in a quasi-judicial capacity. Gobel v. Maricopa County, 867 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir.1989). The prosecutor's "scope of authority" includes those activities with some connection to the general matters committed to the prosecutor's control or supervision. Id. "Quasi-judicial" activities are those that are intimately associated with the judicial process. Id. (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. at 994-95). But a prosecutor's conduct while acting as an administrator or investigative officer is not "quasi-judicial" and, therefore, does not enjoy absolute immunity. See Challenge, Inc. v. State, 138 Ariz. 200, 204, 673 P.2d 944, 948 (App.1983). Accordingly, a court must apply a "functional analysis" to determine whether absolute immunity exists: it must examine the nature of the prosecutor's activities. Gobel, 867 F.2d at 1203; Challenge, 138 Ariz. at 204, 673 P.2d at 948. Furthermore, an examining court must disregard the intent, motive, or state of mind that the prosecutor had when performing the activity in question. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1077-78 (9th Cir.1986).
Absolute prosecutorial immunity is not limited to criminal prosecutions, but extends to civil enforcement proceedings, as well. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2915-16, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); see also Challenge, 138 Ariz. 200 n. 1, 673 P.2d 944 n. 1 (). Thus, if the prosecution here acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and within the scope of its authority, absolute immunity is applicable.
Nevertheless, Ford argues that, because some actions by a prosecutor are not shielded by absolute immunity, any determination regarding immunity would be premature at this point since there exist "factual questions of what functions were performed by the defendants in the factual scenario for each of [Ford's] claims." Defendants, however, correctly respond that we must look to the actions alleged in Ford's complaint and, assuming them to be true, determine whether they were performed in a quasi-judicial capacity and within the prosecutor's scope of authority. We therefore consider each claim in turn.
Ford's malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims were based on the filing of the complaint and the defendants' persistence in pursuing it despite their alleged knowledge that the claims were baseless. This conduct, however, is precisely the type protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. "[A]bsolute immunity is warranted when the prosecutor acts as an advocate in initiating a prosecution and presenting the state's case." Gobel, 867 F.2d at 1203. This is true regardless whether the prosecutor has knowledge that the charge is baseless. See Challenge, 138 Ariz. at 204, 673 P.2d at 948. Accordingly, defendants have absolute immunity with respect to these claims.
For reasons discussed in the previous section, defendants are absolutely immunized from Ford's § 1983 and § 1985 claims ("civil rights claims") to the extent these claims were based on the filing and pursuit of the complaint. 5 The civil rights claims, though, alleged two additional bases: a) the State's discovery violation and b) the untrue statements made by Carey. As to the discovery violation, it is clear that absolute immunity applies, since the conduct of discovery is both quasi-judicial and within the prosecutor's authority. See Challenge, 138 Ariz. at 204, 673 P.2d at 948 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction
... ... Miller; Greg Fisher; Jeff Henry; Al Ramirez; and John Does 1-5; County of Ada; Matt Stoppello; Gus Cahill, Defendants-Respondents ... No. 0 ... Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, December 2006 Term ... March 29, 2007 ... Rehearing ... In Arizona v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona, that state's court of appeals determined ... ...
-
Donahoe v. Arpaio
...See, e.g., Doc. 271 at 10 (citing Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.2004); State v. Superior Court in and for Cnty. of Maricopa, 186 Ariz. 294, 921 P.2d 697 (Ct.App.1996); Challenge, Inc. v. State ex rel. Corbin, 138 Ariz. 200, 673 P.2d 944 (Ct.App.1983); Butz, 438 U.S......
- Morgan v. Cochise Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
-
Stanley v. Gallegos
...activities with some connection to the general matters committed to the prosecutor's control or supervision." State v. Superior Court , 186 Ariz. 294, 921 P.2d 697, 700 (App. 1996). Perhaps scope of authority should be defined similarly to scope of employment , a term used in assessing whet......