recognizing the reckless investigation claim, citing Amrine, but concluding that the plaintiff failed sufficiently to assert the claim
How later courts described this case
- recognizing the reckless investigation claim, citing Amrine, but concluding that the plaintiff failed sufficiently to assert the claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER J. KURKA, No. 15-35121
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00034-SLG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN PROBST; BEN JAFFA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Walter J. Kurka appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims relating to misdemeanor
criminal charges against him in Alaska state court. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity); Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004,
1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and
prosecutorial immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Probst,
an Alaska state trooper, on the basis of qualified immunity because Kurka failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Probst’s investigation of
Kurka violated Kurka’s constitutional rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability
for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Kurka’s claims against defendant Jaffa
on the basis of prosecutorial immunity because Jaffa’s actions were performed in
his role as a state prosecutor. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from liability
under § 1983 for his conduct in pursuing a criminal prosecution insofar as he acts
within his role as an advocate for the State and his actions are intimately associated
with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” (citation and internal quotation
2 15-35121
marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-35121