Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, No. 10-56787 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff spent 24 years in prison after being convicted for murder based largely upon the perjured testimony of an unreliable jailhouse informant, Edward Fink. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the District Attorney's Office failed to create any system for the Deputy District Attorneys handling criminal cases to access information pertaining to the benefits provided to jailhouse informants and other impeachment information, and failed to train Deputy District Attorneys to disseminate this information. At issue on appeal was whether a district attorney acted as a local or a state official when establishing policy and training related to the use of jailhouse informants. The court concluded that the policies challenged by plaintiff were distinct from the acts the district attorney undertook on behalf of the state. Even taking into account the control and supervisory powers of the Attorney General, the District Attorney represented the county when establishing policy and training related to the use of jailhouse informants. Therefore, a cause of action could lie against the county under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the pleadings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, entered following a decision by the United States Supreme Court, and held that the County of Los Angeles could be liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the district attorney acted as final policymaker for the County when adopting and implementing internal polices and procedures related to the use of jailhouse informants. Plaintiff spent 24 years in prison after being convicted for murder based largely upon the perjured testimony of unreliable jailhouse informant Edward Fink. He was released after the district court determined that Fink had lied and that it might have made a difference if the prosecution had told plaintiff’s lawyer that Fink had received prior rewards in return for favorable testimony. Subsequently, in plaintiff’s § 1983 case, the Supreme Court held that the Los Angeles County district attorney and chief deputy district attorney were absolutely immune from plaintiff’s claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to a failure to properly train prosecutors, failed to properly supervise prosecutors, and failed to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. Van de Kamp v Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 339 (2009). On remand, the district court, among other things, granted the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Reversing the district court, the panel held that the Los Angeles County District Attorney represents the County when establishing administrative policies and training related to the general operation of the district attorney’s office, including the establishment of an index containing information regarding the use of jailhouse informants. Therefore, a cause of action may lie against the County under § 1983. Judge Reinhardt concurred with the opinion and wrote separately to emphasize the problems related to the eponymous and notorious Edward Fink and to explain why he found unpersuasive the California Supreme Court’s reasoning in Pitts v. County of Kern, 949 P.2d 920, 923 (Cal. 1998) (holding that the district attorney represents the state, not the county, when preparing to prosecute and when prosecuting crimes, and when establishing policy and training employees in these areas).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.