FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOANITA ADAMS, No. 12-35376
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00995-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, and its Police
Department and its Municipal Court
Cooperation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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
2 12-35376
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 claim
against Officers Schmidt and Sant because Adams failed to allege facts
demonstrating that Schmidt and Sant lacked probable cause to arrest her. See
United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Probable cause to
arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information
sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been
or is being committed by the person being arrested.”).
The district court properly dismissed Adams’s claims against the City of
Federal Way because Adams failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants’
actions “implement[ed] or execute[d] a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or
decision officially adopted and promulgated” by the City, or that any deprivation
was inflicted “pursuant to governmental ‘custom.’” Monell v. Dep’t of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-35376