The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action alleging violations of her civil rights. Pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 22). A hearing was held before the undersigned in Redding, California, on September 1, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff appeared pro se. John Robert Whitefleet, Esq., appeared for defendant. After the hearing, the matter was held open to allow the parties to submit further briefing on the issue of qualified immunity. Plaintiff submitted her brief on September 16, 2011, and defendant submitted his response on September 21, 2011.
A. Plaintiff's Allegations
This action proceeds on the first amended complaint (Doc. 8). Plaintiff's statement of facts is somewhat unclear. The amended complaint, which appears to be based on a copy of the original complaint with various additions and deletions, contains a heading on page 4 entitled "Statement of Facts." The specific factual allegations under this heading, however, are crossed out with a notation "Please go to page 5." At page 5 plaintiff states:
The relevant facts are in the procedural history of this case. The most important part of a search warrant is the affidavit of probable cause.
Exhibit A pages 3-6 are the facts Grossman presented to D.A. Woods, who reviewed it and with his understanding of search warrants felt confident in signing it and passed it on to Judge Edwards who in his judicial authority agreed which then gave Grossman the validation to execute. These are the same facts Hereford through his training felt were incriminating enough to prosecute.
Plaintiff knew she was innocent from the very beginning and Exhibit B pages 16-17 are verified proof of that fact.
A review of Exhibits A and B, which appear to be additional factual statements, reflects that plaintiff claims defendant Grossman obtained and executed a search warrant that was later determined not to be based on probable cause.
Next, the amended complaint contains a discussion of municipal liability. While plaintiff correctly states that municipal liability can lie only where some governmental policy or custom is the moving force behind a constitutional violation, plaintiff does not allege any such policy or custom as to any of the municipal defendants specifically named in the amended complaint.
Next, plaintiff appears to address the issues of judicial and prosecutorial immunity raised in the court's prior screening order. The amended complaint presents a generalized discussion of public confidence in the judicial system, but does not add any new allegations tending to indicate that the immunities discussed in the court's prior order do not apply.
Finally, the amended complaint sets forth generalized discussions relating to plaintiff's state law claims.
In findings and recommendations issued on January 27, 2011, the court recommended that all defendants except Grossman be dismissed and that the action proceed against Grossman on plaintiff's allegations related to the search warrant. Specifically, the court recommended: "This action proceed as against defendant Grossman only on plaintiff's claim that he obtained and executed a search warrant that was not based on probable cause." The findings and recommendations ...