Janice Ohman v. County of Orange

Good Law
460 F. App'x 649
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 30, 201110-55231California472 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Janice Ohman appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the County of Orange and Deputy District Attorney Israel Claustro in his individual capacity. She has not pursued an appeal from the district court’s order dismissing Ohman’s claim against the County.

Ohman’s claim is based upon Claustro’s conduct in prosecuting a case against her. Ohman alleges that the state charged her with forgery, and supported its case using inadmissible evidence obtained illegally by the Tustin Police Department. State courts suppressed that evidence in 2008, then dismissed the charges. She further alleges that at some point after Claustro took over control of the prosecution, he instructed the Tustin Police Department not to find additional evidence to support forgery charges, reintroduced charges based on the original inadmissible evidence, and produced it in response to discovery requests, knowing it had been seized illegally. That second criminal action eventually was also terminated in Oh-man’s favor.

The district court dismissed the federal action on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. Ohman argues that Claustro was performing administrative or…

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.