Wilson v. Sullivan, 022206 FED09, 04-56565

Docket Nº:04-56565
Party Name:MARK WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHUCK SULLIVAN, Detective Anaheim Police Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 22, 2006
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MARK WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHUCK SULLIVAN, Detective Anaheim Police Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-56565

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 22, 2006

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 13, 2006[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. CV-02-09410-GHK George H. King, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Mark Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim . Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to timely serve summons and complaint. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

Wilson alleged, among other things, that an unidentified woman accused him of bothering her on different occasions and defendants Sullivan and Valente were involved in the investigation of the woman’s complaint; although no criminal charges were brought against Wilson, the woman’s complaint resulted in the revocation of Wilson’s parole.

The district court properly dismissed for failure to state a claim Wilson’s section 1983 claims based on alleged malicious prosecution because Wilson could not allege “favorable termination”; he conceded that his parole was revoked based on the unidentified woman’s complaints. See Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An individual seeking to bring a malicious prosecution claim must generally establish that the prior proceedings terminated in such a manner as to indicate his innocence.”).

We are not persuaded by Wilson’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by considering the police reports submitted by defendant Sullivan. See Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1076.

The district court also properly concluded that Wilson failed to state constitutional claims against...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP