Kevin Cairns v. County of El Dorado
694 F. App'x 534
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Cairns was criminally prosecuted on multiple charges; he was acquitted of four counts but convicted of disturbing the peace.
- Kevin and Nancy Cairns sued the County of El Dorado under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging malicious prosecution and a Monell claim against the county.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; the Cairnses appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the Complaint plausibly alleged the elements of California malicious prosecution law (favorable termination, lack of probable cause, and malice).
- The panel concluded Kevin’s mixed outcome in the criminal case (acquittals plus conviction) meant he did not obtain a favorable termination as a matter of law.
- The court also held the complaint pleaded sufficient facts showing probable cause and contained only conclusory allegations of malice; amendment would be futile, so dismissal without leave to amend was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Favorable termination for malicious prosecution | Cairns argues the acquittals on several charges amount to a favorable termination | County contends the conviction on disturbing the peace defeats a favorable-termination showing | Court: No favorable termination as a matter of law because the judgment must be assessed as a whole; mixed verdict defeats the element |
| Probable cause to prosecute | Cairns argues prosecution lacked probable cause (pointing to self-defense evidence) | County/DA argue the charged claims were legally tenable based on the alleged facts | Court: Complaint’s allegations support a finding of probable cause; mere evidence suggesting self-defense does not negate probable cause |
| Malice (improper purpose) | Cairns alleges DA prosecuted "unfairly and unlawfully" and that sheriff withheld exculpatory evidence | County argues allegations are conclusory and do not show prosecution was instituted for an improper purpose | Court: Allegations are conclusory; insufficient to plead malice under Twombly; dismissal without leave to amend was proper because proposed specifics could not cure defects |
| Monell municipal liability | Cairns asserts county policies/practices caused constitutional violation | County argues no underlying constitutional violation; so no Monell liability | Court: Monell claim fails because no underlying malicious-prosecution constitutional violation was established |
Key Cases Cited
- Conrad v. United States, 447 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of California malicious prosecution claim)
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 765 P.2d 498 (Cal. 1989) (California malicious prosecution elements)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 881 P.2d 1083 (Cal. 1994) (assessing favorable termination when criminal proceedings produce mixed results)
- Estate of Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Interscope Records, Inc., 515 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2008) (probable cause evaluated on an objective legal-tenability basis)
- Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2015) (existence of some self-defense evidence does not negate probable cause)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead more than conclusory allegations to survive dismissal)
- DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1992) (futility justifies denial of leave to amend)
- Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements required to hold a municipality liable under Monell)