NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT PETERSON, No. 19-35102
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01955-JR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM BRYAN PORTER, a citizen of
the State of Oregon in his official and
individual capacities; RONALD LEWIS
TEED, a citizen of the State of Oregon,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 4, 2020
Portland, Oregon
Before: FERNANDEZ and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,** District
Judge.
Christopher Scott Peterson appeals the adverse summary judgment in favor
of Appellees William Porter and Ronald Teed on Peterson’s malicious prosecution
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District
Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
claims and the denial of a motion to compel. Peterson argues that Porter was not
entitled to prosecutorial immunity, that record evidence showed that Teed initiated
criminal proceedings against Peterson without probable cause, and that the district
court should have compelled Porter to identify which documents constituted
evidence of aggravated theft. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Oswalt
v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2011). “We determine,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether
there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly
applied the relevant substantive law.” Id. (quoting Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc.,
306 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2002)). We review the denial of a motion to compel
discovery for abuse of discretion. Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 677
(9th Cir. 2018).
As a prosecutor, Porter’s decision to pursue charges against Peterson is
entitled to absolute immunity. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269–270
(1993). Additionally, there is no evidence that Porter engaged in any misconduct
before submitting the case to a grand jury that would give rise to a malicious
prosecution claim. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary
judgment in favor of Porter.
2 19-35102
There is insufficient evidence in the record to create a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Teed initiated or continued the criminal proceeding
against Peterson. There is no evidence that Teed insisted on Peterson’s
prosecution, exerted undue influence on Porter, made material misrepresentations
to Porter, or withheld exculpatory information from Porter. Porter’s decision to
prosecute Peterson was an “intelligent exercise of the officer’s discretion” and was
not forced by Teed. Humbert v. Knutson, 224 Or. 133, 138, 354 P.2d 826, 828
(1960); see also Waldner v. Dow, 128 Or. App. 197, 201, 876 P.2d 785, 786 (1994)
(“[T]he fact that defendant made statements to the prosecutor is not, by itself,
sufficient to support an action for malicious prosecution, even if the statements
were false.”). Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment
in favor of Teed.
As for the motion to compel, Porter repeatedly stated that he could not recall
which incriminating evidence he possessed and relied on before presenting the case
to the grand jury. In light of Porter’s prior testimony, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that the costs of additional discovery outweighed
the likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-35102