NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HENNEBERRY, No. 16-17049
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02766-EDL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, California; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 14, 2018***
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
John Henneberry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and without leave to amend his 42
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties consented to proceed
before a magistrate judge.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that more than a dozen defendants, including police
officers, prosecutors, and a judge, violated his constitutional rights in connection
with his arrest. The court dismissed his claims inter alia for failure to comply with
rule 8(c) which requires a short and plain statement of a plaintiff’s claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district
court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Edwards v.
Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry’s claims against Alameda
County, the City of Fremont and the City of Newark because Henneberry failed to
allege facts sufficient to show a policy, practice, or custom of any of these entities
resulting in a constitutional violation. See AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of
Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012) (pleading requirements for a liability
claim against a municipality under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City
of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry’s claims against
defendants Deputy District Attorneys Saunders and Hernandez and Assistant
District Attorney Jay as barred by prosecutorial immunity. See Milstein v. Cooley,
257 F.3d 1004, 1008–09 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that state prosecutors are
immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for activities intimately
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process).
2 16-17049
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry’s claims against
defendants Diaz, Becker, Ahern, Muranishi, O’Malley, Linn, Lucero and Leal
because Henneberry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any of these
defendants were the cause of Henneberry’s claimed deprivation of constitutional
rights. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142 (1979) (“[A] public official is
liable under § 1983 only if he causes the plaintiff to be subjected to deprivation of
his constitutional rights.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry’s false arrest and false
imprisonment claims against defendants Heckman and Homayoun because
Henneberry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the officers lacked
probable cause to arrest him. Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.
2011) (affirming district court’s grant of motion to dismiss where amended
complaint showed arrest was supported by probable cause).
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry’s claims against Judge
Keller on the basis of judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d
1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to whether an act is judicial
in nature and subject to judicial immunity).
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry’s claims against Officer
Ramsey. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth
elements of claim under § 1985(3)). Officer Ramsey was not involved in
3 16-17049
Henneberry’s arrest or prosecution, and his complaint is devoid of any facts
suggesting a conspiracy between Ramsey and anyone else.
The district court properly granted defendants’ motions to dismiss
Henneberry’s conspiracy claim because his allegations that defendants deprived
him of his constitutional rights were conclusory and based on unreasonable
inferences. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Sup.Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th
Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations of conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of due process
insufficient to state a claim).
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry’s state law claims. See Cal.
Gov't Code §§ 945.3, 945.6 (requiring civil action to be filed within six months
after the termination of a criminal prosecution); Cal. Gov't Code §§ 910, 915(c),
945.4 (requiring timely submission of a claim against judicial defendants); Cal.
Gov't Code § 821.6 (stating that public employees are not liable for injury caused
by instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the
scope of their employment).
Henneberry’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
4 16-17049