Fields v. Jansen

Full title: PHILIP FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN H. JANSEN, M.D., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jan 16, 2004

No. 03-5646 MMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2004)

Opinion

No. 03-5646 MMC

January 16, 2004

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

By order filed December 22, 2003, the Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim, granted plaintiff leave to amend, and denied plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice to refiling in the event plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On January 5, 2004, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and refiled his application to proceed in forma pauperis.

In his Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that he has "suffered endless pain, insomnia, emotional distress, [and] depression for [ ] patently false and malicious accusations" defendant made concerning plaintiff. (See Amended Compl. ¶ 2.) According to plaintiff, defendant made the statements while "under oath, and during testimony in a Federal Case." (See Amended Compl. ¶ 17.) Based on these allegations, plaintiff seeks damages based on a claim that defendant's conduct violated federal law, as well as the law of the states of Arkansas and California. Defendant, however, is entitled to absolute immunity under federal law, as well as under the laws of Arkansas and California, on a claim for damages based on having allegedly provided false testimony in a court proceeding. See Briscoe v. Lahue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-41 (1983) (holding common-law immunity for witnesses in judicial proceeding applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; finding defendant entitled to absolute immunity on claim for damages based on claim he provided false testimony during course of criminal trial); Routh Wrecking Service. Inc. v. Washington, 980 S.W.2d 240, 242, 245 (Ark. 1998) (holding defendant entitled to absolute immunity, under Arkansas law, on claim for damages based on defendant having provided false testimony at probable cause hearing);Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205, 215 (Cal. 1990) (holding "litigation privilege" under California law is "absolute" and "applies to any publication required or permitted by law in the course of a judicial proceeding").

Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendant and plaintiff's Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:

1. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, without leave to amend.

2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, without leave to amend.

2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED as moot.