Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, No. 12-55109 (9th Cir. 2016)
When plaintiff testified at her son’s trial, LA County Deputy District Attorney Michele Hanisee published all of plaintiff’s medical records that she had subpoenaed from Kaiser without redacting them for the sole purpose of discrediting plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed a complaint pro se for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law causes of action against Kaiser and Hanisee, as well as County Defendants.
The district court dismissed all causes of action against the County Defendants with prejudice and against Kaiser without prejudice.
The court concluded that defendants Hanisee and Cooley are not entitled to absolute immunity for Hanisee’s misrepresentations in her declaration supporting the application for the subpoena duces tecum; the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff leave to amend her section 1983 claim against the County; and the County Defendants are not entitled to the claimed state statutory immunity because the claims against them are not malicious prosecution claims.
Because the court reversed the dismissal of certain federal claims, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of state law claims against Kaiser.
The panel held that the prosecutor and her supervisor, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, were not entitled to absolute immunity for the prosecutor’s misrepresentations in her declaration supporting the subpoena application.