Coleman v. County of Los Angeles CA2/3

Filed 2/22/16 Coleman v. County of Los Angeles CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ARTHUR COLEMAN, B260969

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC525764) v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Arthur Coleman, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nelson & Fulton, Henry Patrick Nelson and Elise H. Hur for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Arthur Coleman appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Defendant, the County of Los Angeles (the County), after the trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint charged the County with a variety of civil violations related to criminal charges filed against Plaintiff by the district attorney that were later dismissed. The trial court held the County was immune from liability for injuries allegedly caused by the district attorney’s erroneous filing of criminal charges. We agree with the court’s conclusion and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In his operative first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged he was wrongly arrested and charged for failing to register as a sex offender. The charges were ultimately dismissed at a preliminary hearing after it was shown that the complaints had been based on false information. Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff asserted the following purported causes of action against the County and its employees: (1) false accusation; (2) false imprisonment; (3) perjury; (4) conspiracy; (5) collateral estoppel; (6) res judicata; (7) malicious prosecution; (8) gross negligence; (9) respondeat superior; (10) equal protection violation; (11) corruption; and (12) false indictment. The County responded with a general demurrer, in which it argued it was immune, as a public entity, from liability for injuries caused by the district attorney’s filing of criminal charges. Plaintiff’s opposition did not address the County’s prosecutorial immunity. Instead, Plaintiff argued only that the criminal proceedings were improper. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, concluding the County was immune from liability as a matter of law to the extent Plaintiff’s claims were based on the district attorney’s initiation of a judicial proceeding against Plaintiff. Plaintiff now appeals the resulting judgment.