911 F2d 738 Smith v. G Walkup

911 F.2d 738

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Charles W. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Bruce G. WALKUP, Pierce County, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-35438.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 3, 1990.*
Decided Aug. 7, 1990.

Before WALLACE, CANBY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Charles W. Smith appeals pro se various orders of the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against Pierce County, three Pierce County district attorneys, two Pierce County law enforcement officers, and Smith's probation officer. Smith alleged that he was wrongfully prosecuted for first degree arson in Washington state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.

3

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Pierce County Prosecutors Kathleen Proctor, Jim Schacht, and Steven Merrival on the ground that they are entitled to prosecutorial immunity for acts performed within the scope of their authority during Smith's prosecution for arson. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 678 (9th Cir.1984). The district court also properly granted summary judgment for Smith's probation officer, Bruce Walkup, on the ground that he was entitled to absolute immunity for preparing and submitting a probation report to a Pierce County superior court judge. See Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 908 (1971).

4

We also affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment for sergeant Richard Wolfe, who arrested Smith for arson. Police officers are entitled to immunity from civil damages if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Wolfe's affidavit shows that he had probable cause to arrest Smith for arson. Thus, Wolfe's conduct was objectively reasonable, and he is immune from section 1983 liability. See id.

5

The district court properly dismissed Smith's action against Pierce County for failure to state a claim because Smith failed to allege that any alleged misconduct occurred as a result of an official policy. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Finally, the district court properly dismissed Detective Isaacson on the ground that he was never served. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4(j).

6

For these reasons, the district court's judgment is

7

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3