FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT J. LUMPKIN, No. 14-35413
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02338-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KING COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Robert J. Lumpkin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false
imprisonment and malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lumpkin’s Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims because Lumpkin alleged that a judge found probable cause as
to one of the two charges against him. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d
896, 919 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (elements of a malicious prosecution claim
under § 1983, including a lack of probable cause); Cabrera v. City of Huntington
Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (a plaintiff must show there
was no probable cause in order to prevail on a § 1983 claim for false arrest and
imprisonment); City of Seattle v. Cadigan, 776 P.2d 727, 731 (Wash. Ct. App.
1989) (under Washington state law, absence of probable cause to believe that a
person committed a particular crime for which the person was arrested does not
create an invalid arrest if, at the time of the arrest, the police had sufficient
information to support an arrest of the person on a different charge).
We do not address Lumpkin’s Eighth Amendment claims, raised for the first
time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-35413