Fortson v. Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, 852 F.3d 1190

Fortson was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence (Cal. Penal Code § 243) in 2009, which automatically triggered California’s ten-year firearms prohibition (then § 12021(c)(1)).
The sentencing court expressly allowed Fortson to possess firearms at his workplace as an armed security guard; he was prohibited from keeping weapons at home.
In 2011 the conviction was vacated under Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4 and the case dismissed; Fortson believed this restored his home firearm rights and later acquired two guns and ammunition.
A routine California Bureau of Firearms (BOF) computer check flagged Fortson; BOF agents and LAPD officers went to his home in August 2011, seized the weapons, and charged him under the ten-year ban (charges later dropped).
Fortson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming: facial and as-applied Second Amendment violations; false arrest and malicious prosecution (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments); a Miranda/Fifth Amendment claim; and official-capacity claims against LAPD, City Attorney’s Office, and BOF.
The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice; Fortson appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial Second Amendment challenge to CA’s ten-year ban	Ten-year prohibition is unconstitutional on its face	Law reasonably furthers government interest in preventing domestic gun violence	Ban upheld under intermediate scrutiny (Chovan controlling)
As-applied Second Amendment challenge	Sentencing order’s workplace exception meant ten-year ban didn’t apply at home	Statute automatically imposed the ten-year prohibition; lack of notice not a defense; exception limited to work	As-applied challenge fails; Fortson didn’t allege facts distinguishing him from typical misdemeanant
False arrest / Malicious prosecution (Fourth/14th)	Arrest/prosecution were unlawful and malicious	Officers had probable cause based on discovery of guns and BOF flag; probable cause is a defense	Dismissed: probable cause defeated these claims
Miranda / Fifth Amendment; Official-capacity claims; BOF Eleventh Amendment immunity	Failure to read Miranda; municipal/agency liability	Miranda claims not cognizable under § 1983; BOF immune under Eleventh Amendment; no Monell policy/custom alleged against LAPD	Miranda claim dismissed; BOF immune; official-capacity claims against LAPD dismissed for failure to allege Monell theory

United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding federal lifetime misdemeanor domestic-violence firearm ban under intermediate scrutiny)
Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) (probable cause is a complete defense to § 1983 false-arrest claims)
Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (probable cause bars malicious-prosecution claims)
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) (failure to give Miranda warnings does not create civil liability under § 1983)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and state agencies are generally immune from suits for damages under § 1983)
Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2015) (Monell requires an underlying constitutional violation and a policy or custom as the moving force)
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom causing the constitutional injury)
Lingo v. City of Salem, 832 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2016) (probable cause to arrest can be supported by evidence discovered in ways that may have Fourth Amendment issues)
Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (as-applied challenges require facts distinguishing plaintiff from the typical person covered by the ban)