# Walter Kurka v. John Probst

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 30, 2017 · 678 F. App'x 482

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4120958

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter J. KURKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John PROBST; Ben Jaffa, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 30, 2017
- **Citations:** 678 F. App'x 482
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Trott, Tashima, Callahan
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4120958

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the reckless investigation claim, citing Amrine, but concluding that the plaintiff failed sufficiently to assert the claim

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4120958. Public record. Not legal advice.