United States District Court, N.D. California
January 16, 2004.
PHILIP FIELDS, Plaintiff,
MARTIN H. JANSEN, M.D., Defendant
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
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
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
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).
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
 Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing
before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, without leave to
2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby
DENIED as moot.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.