Chavez v. Robinson, No. 14-35384 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDaniel Chavez served a prison sentence for attempted sexual abuse and then entered probation. Chavez was ordered to enroll in a sex offender treatment program as a condition of his probation. The program required him to admit his guilt before treatment began and while his appeal was pending. Chavez maintained his innocence and invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Chavez was rejected from the treatment program and his probation officer sent him back to prison for violating the terms of probation. The Oregon Attorney General conceded error and the Oregon Court of Appeals remanded his case for retrial. Meanwhile, Chavez filed a pro se in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint in federal district court against his probation officer and therapist. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. At issue was whether a district court can sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint on the basis of qualified immunity under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), which requires dismissal if the action “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” The court held that the term “immune” as used in the statute includes both absolute and qualified immunity. In this case, because Chavez’s complaint did not clearly foreclose the possibility of qualified immunity, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis civil rights complaint and remanded in an action brought against a County probation officer and a private therapist, who had contracted with the County to run a sex offender treatment program. Analyzing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), which requires a court to dismiss an action “at any time” if it determines that the complaint “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief,” the panel held that the term “immune” as used in the statute includes both absolute and qualified immunity. The panel then held that a district court may dismiss a claim on qualified immunity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), but only if it is clear from the complaint that the plaintiff can present no evidence that could overcome a defense of qualified immunity. In this case, the panel determined that plaintiff’s complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity. The panel concluded that further amendment or proceedings would be necessary to clarify, for example, whether the therapist was acting under color of state law in operating the sex offender treatment program and whether the therapist or the probation officer violated any clearly established law. Accordingly, the panel CHAVEZ V. ROBINSON 3 held that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s claims sua sponte.
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.