Adams v. City of Federal Way, 010214 FED9, 12-35376

Docket Nº:12-35376
Party Name:LOANITA ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, and its Police Department and its Municipal Court Cooperation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 02, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LOANITA ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, and its Police Department and its Municipal Court Cooperation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-35376

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 2, 2014

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted December 17, 2013 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00995-RSL

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Loanita Adams appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law violations in connection with her arrest and trial following an altercation with her daughter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Adams's claims against Judge Larson and prosecuting attorneys Duclos and Arthur because Adams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to those defendants' immunity from liability. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when performing nonjudicial functions or acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) ("[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.").

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Adams's state law claims against Officers Schmidt and Sant because Adams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to those defendants' immunity from liability under state law. See Wash. Rev. Code § 10.31.100(2)(c) (requiring an arrest if an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has assaulted a family or household member); id. § 10.31.100(13) ("No police officer may be held criminally or civilly liable for making an arrest pursuant to subsection (2) . . . of this section if the police officer acts in good faith and without malice.").

The district court properly dismissed Adams's Fourth Amendment...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP