Peavy

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 JIBRI PEAVY, Case No. 25-cv-10218-WHO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING THE AMENDED

9 v. COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

10 ALLISON HALEY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,

11 Defendants. 48, 49, 50, 52

12 Before me are many documents for review. Most pertinent is pro se plaintiff Ms. Jibri

13 Peavy’s amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 38. I first screened Ms. Peavy’s complaint on

14 February 6, 2026. See Prior Order [Dkt. No. 24]. In that initial screening, I held that Ms. Peavy

15 failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and that she had filed a lawsuit alleging

16 causes of action that ran against principles of prosecutorial immunity and the Rooker-Feldman

17 doctrine. See id. at 3. I dismissed her complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. Id. at 5.

18 That same day, the Court received a number of filings from Ms. Peavy, demonstrating that

19 she had not seen the Prior Order before filing those documents. See generally Dkt. Nos. 25–35. I

20 subsequently issued an Order Clarifying the Status of the Case and ordered Ms. Peavy to instead

21 file any amended complaint by March 18, 2026. See Order Clarifying Status of Case [Dkt. No.

22 37]. I set a Case Management Conference for May 19, 2026. See Dkt. No. 41.

23 Ms. Peavy filed an amended complaint, and I now conduct a second sua sponte review.

24 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (requiring dismissal of a case prosecuted by a litigant proceeding in

25 forma pauperis if the court determines “at any time” that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious;

26 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a

27 defendant who is immune from such relief.”). Ms. Peavy again fails to meet her burden to file a

1 opportunity to amend her complaint would be futile. For the reasons explained below, Ms.

2 Peavy’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1

3 BACKGROUND

4 In her amended complaint, Ms. Peavy somewhat clarifies the factual background leading to

5 her instant case against the Napa County District Attorney’s Office (“Napa DAO”) and Allison

6 Haley (“Haley”), the District Attorney of Napa County. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”)

7 [Dkt. No. 38]. In brief, Ms. Peavy alleges that through an independent investigation, she

8 discovered Haley’s spouse was inappropriately sending notifications of his traffic violations to the

9 Napa DAO instead of following the normal course. See Am. Compl. 6–7. At some point after

10 making this discovery in early 2025, Haley and the Napa DAO initiated criminal proceedings

11 against Ms. Peavy in Napa County Superior Court.2 Am. Compl. 6. Ms. Peavy alleges that

12 defendants mailed her a Notice to Appear for those proceedings to a “fictious address,” despite

13 knowing her true address. Id. Because she never appeared at the hearing, defendants obtained a

14 bench warrant for Ms. Peavy’s arrest. Id.

15 On January 27, 2026, Ms. Peavy appeared in Napa County Superior Court. Am. Compl. 7.

16 No conviction was entered against her, and the case was placed into the court’s Diversion process.

17 Id. The court ordered Ms. Peavy to complete eight hours of community service, which she wished

18 to complete at the Napa Animal Shelter but which she ultimately completed at the Alameda

19 County Community Food Bank. Am. Compl. 7–8. Ms. Peavy alleges that she completed 11.5

20 hours of community service, well over the required amount. Am. Compl. 8.

21 She additionally raises (in support of her Monell claim alleging a pattern or practice of

22 discrimination by defendants) a 2015 incident that occurred in Napa Valley in which several Black

23 women alleged racial discrimination at a Napa County business as well as the 2018 verdict in

24 Rossi v. County of Napa, a Napa County Superior Court discrimination case. Am. Compl. 7–10.

25

1 Ms. Peavy’s additionally filed motions and documents construed as motions, see Dkt. Nos. 42,

26

45, 46, 48, 52, are rendered MOOT by this Order.

27

2 It is unclear from the complaint whether Ms. Peavy alleges that these criminal proceedings were

1 See Rossi v. County of Napa et al., No. 2666881, 2018 WL 2398424 (Cal. Super. Feb. 28, 2018)

2 (entering Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant).

3 Ms. Peavy brings three counts against defendants: (1) violation of her Fourteenth

4 Amendment right to Due Process for failure to mail her Notice to Appear to the correct address, 42

5 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a speedy trial for

6 “maintaining a ‘secret’ docket through defective service”, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) Prosecutorial

7 Misconduct (Monell) for the “use of unreliable information and the failure to verify addresses . .

8 .”, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Am. Compl. 11. She seeks four million dollars in compensatory, punitive,

9 and Monell liability damages as well as a declaratory judgment that (1) the original November

10 2025 bench warrant was void and (2) her state-court ordered diversion community service

11 requirement is complete. Am. Comp. 9–11. As I explained in the Prior Order, Ms. Peavy may not

12 bring these claims against the defendants.

13 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that defendants, while “acting under

14 color of state law,” caused a deprivation of her federal rights. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

15 (1988). A plaintiff must establish both a causation-in-fact and a proximate (i.e. legal) causation.

16 See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). Causation allegations

17 “must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant

18 whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy,

19 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has long held that prosecutors are

20 absolutely immune for “activities [that are] intimately associated with the judicial phase of the

21 criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); cf. Botello v. Gammick, 413

22 F.3d 971, 976 (2005) (“However, when prosecutors perform administrative or investigative

23 functions, only qualified immunity is available. That is, the actions of a prosecutor are not

24 absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor.”) (collecting cases

25 demonstrating the difference between judicial, administrative, or investigative prosecutorial

26 action).

27

1 DISCUSSION

2 I. Failure to State a Claim

3 As an initial matter, Ms. Peavy has failed to state a claim that defendants deprived her of

4 her Constitutional rights. Each of her claims is rooted in her allegation that defendants wrongfully

5 obtained a bench warrant because she failed to appear at her November 2025 hearing after

6 defendants mailed her Notice to Appear to the incorrect address. Am. Compl. 6.

7 Regarding her first cause of action, the Supreme Court has explained that an “elementary

8 and fundamental requirement” of due process is “notice reasonably calculated, under all the

9 circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an

10 opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S.

11 314 (1950). “[W]hen the Government learns that its notice effort has not succeeded, this

12 knowledge triggers an obligation on the Government’s part to take additional reasonable steps to

13 effect notice, if it is practicable to do so.” United States v. Rivera-Valdes, 157 F.4th 978, 981 (9th

14 Cir. 2025). Although Ms. Peavy has alleged in a conclusory statement that “[d]espite possessing

15 Plaintiff’s verified address, Defendant Haley personally authorized the use of a fictitious address

16 in sworn affidavits to the court,” she has not sufficiently alleged facts that demonstrate that the

17 Government (1) learned that its attempt to provide notice was unsuccessful, or that (2) it failed to

18 take reasonable steps to effect practicable notice. She thus fails to state a claim for violation of

19 due process as it relates to her address allegations.

20 Her second cause of action for violation of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel fares no

21 better. The Sixth Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

22 right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime

23 shall have been committed . . . and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” Const.

24 Amend. VI. The Sixth Amendment, however, is an offense specific right. That means the “Sixth

25 Amendment’s right to counsel attaches upon the initiation of formal charges.” United States v.

26 Percy, 250 F.3dd 720, 725 (9th Cir. 2001). In her complaint, Ms. Peavy alleges that her case was

27 moved to the Napa County Court’s Diversion program. It is unclear whether Ms. Peavy was ever

1 whether she ever sought the assistance of counsel, or whether she was ever informed of her right

2 to counsel. She merely states, again in a conclusory fashion, that “Defendants prevented Plaintiff

3 from exercising her right to an attorney and a prompt resolution of the charges” because they

4 “maintain[ed] a ‘secret’ docket through defective service.” This conclusory allegation does not

5 state a claim for violation of her Sixth Amendment rights.

6 Ms. Peavy’s third claim for prosecutorial misconduct subject to Monell liability likewise

7 fails. “A government entity may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless a policy,

8 practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a moving force behind a violation of

9 constitutional rights.” Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011). To

10 establish liability for government entities under Monell, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that [she]

11 possessed a constitutional right of which [s]he was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a

12 policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right;

13 and, (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation.” Plumeau v. Sc.

14 Dist. No. 40 Cnty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 422, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and

15 citation omitted). Ms. Peavy’s complaint lacks any factual support to sufficiently allege any of

16 these prongs. For the policy prongs, Ms. Peavy raises only the existence of the unrelated Rossi

17 case and the incident of alleged racial discrimination against a Napa County business—neither of

18 which are related to Ms. Peavy’s instant case and the latter of which does not involve the Napa

19 DAO in any way. She cannot maintain a Monell claim against the Napa DAO.3

20 II. Prosecutorial Immunity

21 More fundamentally, Ms. Peavy’s claims are barred by prosecutorial immunity. To be

22 sure, a prosecutor “isn’t entitled to absolute immunity merely because of [her] status as a

23 prosecutor.” Torres v. Goddard, 793 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015). A court “must evaluate

24 each act a . . . prosecutor took and determine whether the prosecutor was performing a function

25 that’s protected by absolute immunity.” Id. Ms. Peavy challenges the bench warrant issued by the

26 state court because of the prosecution’s decision to mail a Notice to Appear to a defective address.

27

] “Whether a prosecutor’s application for a warrant is protected by absolute immunity

2 || depends on the function the warrant serves.” /d. In Torres, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the

3 Supreme Court’s decision in Kalina v. Fletcher in which the prosecutor “commenced a criminal

4 || proceeding against [the plaintiff] by filing three documents[:] .. . an information . . . a motion for

5 an arrest warrant .. .” and a certification of probable cause that “summarized the evidence

6 || supporting the charge.” /d. (quoting Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 120-21 (1997)). Because

7 || the prosecutor’s actions were “the work of an advocate . . . integral to the initiation of the

8 || prosecution” insofar as the information and the motion for the arrest warrant were concerned, they

9 || were protected by absolute immunity. Kalina, 522 U.S. at 130. By the same logic and based on

10 || the scant facts raised in Ms. Peavy’s complaint, defendants’ application for a bench warrant in

11 state court is protected by the same principles of prosecutorial immunity. This is true even if the

« 12 || application was sent to the incorrect address. Ms. Peavy may therefore not bring these claims

€ 13 against defendants.

14 Ms. Peavy has now filed multiple complaints attempting to state causes of action for relief

2 15 in this case. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 5, 14, 26, 28, 38. Each has been unsuccessful. Allowing her

© 16 |] continued leave to amend would be futile. See Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (1988) (“If the

17 || district court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading

18 could not possibly cure the deficiency, then . . . dismissal without leave to amend is proper.”

19 || (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). I therefore dismiss Ms. Peavy’s complaint WITH

20 || PREJUDICE.*

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.” □

22 Dated: April 29, 2026. CE

am H."Ortick

23 United States District Judge

24

25 ‘] finally note that Ms. Peavy is possibly not totally without remedy. Should she continue to

believe there were procedural or substantive errors with her state court case, she may wish to seek

26 || opportunities for appellate relief through the appropriate state court procedures.

7 > Ms. Peavy continues to have address issues in this court. See Dkt. Nos. 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

(showing mail returned as undeliverable). The clerk is to mail a copy of the instant Order, the

28 forthcoming Judgment, as well as all previous orders to the latest mailing address available on the

docket.