Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FIELDS v. JANSEN

United States District Court, N.D. California


January 16, 2004.

PHILIP FIELDS, Plaintiff,
v.
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 absolute Page 2 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 proceeding").

  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).

  CONCLUSION

  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 verdict.

  [] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

  IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

  1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, without leave to amend.

  2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED as moot.

20040116

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.