杏十八新茶分享

 

Lacey v. Maricopa County

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
  • Date Filed: 08-29-2012
  • Case #: 09-15703; 09-15806
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: En banc; Circuit Judge Bybee for the Court; Dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski; Dissent by Circuit Judge Tallman

A claim against a party "dismissed with prejudice, and without leave to amend" is considered preserved for appeal, regardless of whether the dismissed party is included in a repled complaint.

Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin (collectively 鈥淟acey鈥), owners of Phoenix New Times, LLC (鈥淣ew Times鈥), filed suit against Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Independent Special Deputy Attorney Dennis Wilenchik, and Maricopa County, alleging various 搂 1983 claims and asserting violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. These claims arose from events surrounding Lacey鈥檚 arrest following the New Times鈥檚 publication of certain materials, including Arpaio鈥檚 personal information and subpoenas issued by Wilenchik. The district court dismissed the claims against Wilenchik and Arpaio on grounds of qualified immunity 鈥渇or failure to state a constitutional violation.鈥 Lacey appealed the dismissal, and Wilenchik appealed the district court鈥檚 refusal to grant absolute immunity. As to Wilenchik鈥檚 appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that absolute immunity did not apply to 鈥渁cts of a prosecutor designed to avoid the 鈥榡udicial phase.鈥欌 The Court disagreed with the district court in finding that Lacey had asserted facts that, if true, were sufficient to establish First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, such that qualified immunity did not apply to the claims against Arpaio and Wilenchik. The Court then addressed claims against Thomas, who was dismissed under absolute immunity in the initial complaint and not included as a defendant in the amended complaint. The Court overruled in part Forsyth, concluding that 鈥渇or claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.鈥 However, the Court concluded that Thomas鈥檚 appointment of Wilenchik was a 鈥減rosecutorial function for which immunity is vital.鈥 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top