Milstein

Milstein v. Cooley

Good Law
208 F. Supp. 2d 1116·2002 WL 1448323
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 12, 2002CV9901054DDPAIJXCalifornia4,346 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After reviewing and considering the materials submitted by the parties and hearing oral argument, the Court grants the motion.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 29, 1999, Leonard Milstein (the “plaintiff’ or “Milstein”) filed an action against Stephen L. Cooley (“Cooley”) and Robert B. Foltz (“Foltz”) (collectively the “defendants”) alleging due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and malicious prosecution. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs second amended complaint (“SAC”) on the basis of absolute prosecu-torial immunity, and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit followed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that because certain acts by the defendants were not done in their role as advocates, the defendants were not shielded by absolute immunity as to all claims. Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1011-13 (9th Cir.2001).

The Ninth Circuit held that absolute prosecutorial immunity applied to the defendants’ conduct in securing a grand jury indictment, securing an information, and securing an arrest warrant. Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.