Nhia Vang v. Steven Decker
705 F. App'x 623
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Six plaintiffs appealed dismissal of their malicious-prosecution claims after criminal charges against them were dismissed.
- District court relied on a declaration from U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner when granting dismissal; Ninth Circuit treats that as summary-judgment disposition.
- To prevail on malicious prosecution under California law plaintiffs must show the criminal action terminated in their favor (a favorable termination).
- The government showed it dismissed charges for reasons “not inconsistent with” plaintiffs’ guilt; some charges were dismissed on the government’s motion, others were dismissed by the court without prejudice for indictment-defect notice problems.
- Plaintiffs sought pre‑trial discovery to rebut Wagner’s declaration; the district court denied discovery and plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 56(d) procedures or explain how requested discovery would create a genuine dispute.
- Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute a party was denied for failure to comply with California Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs showed a favorable termination of the underlying criminal proceedings | Dismissals indicate favorable termination supporting malicious-prosecution claims | Dismissals were for reasons not inconsistent with guilt (so not favorable) | Dismissals were not favorable; plaintiffs failed this element |
| Whether Wagner’s declaration created a genuine dispute requiring discovery | Discovery would rebut Wagner and show favorable termination | Wagner’s declaration stands; plaintiffs didn’t show relevance of discovery | Denial of discovery affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial of discovery caused prejudice requiring Rule 56(d) relief | Court should have treated request as Rule 56(d) motion and deferred | Plaintiffs did not comply with Rule 56(d) requirements or explain needed discovery | Rule 56(d) relief not warranted; procedural noncompliance fatal |
| Whether court should allow party substitution under § 377.32 | Plaintiffs sought substitution of Chao Xiong for Nhia Khao Vang | Government opposed based on statutory noncompliance | Substitution denied without prejudice for failure to meet § 377.32 requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Szajer v. City of L.A., 632 F.3d 607 (9th Cir. 2011) (treating reliance on declaration as summary-judgment conversion)
- Laub v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for abuse of discretion review of denial of discovery)
- Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal not favorable if for reasons not inconsistent with guilt)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 881 P.2d 1083 (Cal. 1994) (favorable termination requires entire action to reflect innocence)
- StaffPro, Inc. v. Elite Show Servs., Inc., 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 682 (Ct. App. 2006) (elements required for malicious-prosecution claim)
- Jaffe v. Stone, 114 P.2d 335 (Cal. 1941) (authority on what constitutes favorable termination)