Coffer v. Kliszewski

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Coffer v. Kliszewski

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER COFFER, Case No. 25-cv-04213-EKL

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 2 10 MARK KLISZEWSKI, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

, 14 seeking money damages against the judge who sentenced him in his criminal case and the district 15 attorney who prosecuted him. Court records indicate that plaintiff filed an earlier case raising the 16 same claim against the judge. See Coffer v. Judge Kliszewski, Case No. 25-cv-1464 EKL. In a 17 concurrent order, that complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. 18 This case will be dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff must identify all his claims and 19 defendants in an amended complaint in the earlier case. The earlier case did not name the district 20 attorney as a defendant. Plaintiff may present allegations against her in an amended complaint in 21 that case. 22 Plaintiff is informed that a state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from 23 liability under Section 1983 for her conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as she 24 acts within her role as an “advocate for the State” and her actions are “intimately associated with 25 the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman,

424 U.S. 409, 430-31

(1976). 26 But prosecutors are entitled only to qualified immunity when they perform investigatory or 27 administrative functions or are essentially functioning as police officers or detectives. Buckley v. 1 or administrative, courts look at “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor 2 who performed it.” Kalina v. Fletcher,

522 U.S. 118, 127

(1997). 3 This case is DISMISSED as duplicative. See Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Servs., 487

4 F.3d 684

, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should bring all his claims and name all defendants in the 5 || earlier filed case. The pending motion to file by mail (ECF No. 2) is VACATED. To the extent 6 || plaintiff seeks relief regarding self-harm, he should talk to staff at his prison, and may file a case 7 in the Eastern District of California where he is incarcerated. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: June 25 ,2025 10 11 Eumi K. Lee 12 United States District Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown