Niveen Ismail v. County of Orange
676 F. App'x 690
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Niveen Ismail sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from criminal proceedings and custody events in 2010.
- Defendants included a deputy district attorney, arresting officers, and local government entities; proceedings below included motions to dismiss and summary judgment.
- Key factual events: officers arrested/remanded Ismail on alleged solicitation/attempted kidnapping and related protective-order violations; bail was increased by a judge following a hearing; a formal arrest warrant was issued after an initial remand.
- District court dismissed certain claims on immunity and failure-to-train grounds, granted summary judgment for officers on probable cause, excessive-bail, and warrantless-arrest theories, and granted defendants’ Rule 60(b) reconsideration.
- The district court awarded costs to defendants; Ismail appealed pro se. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial immunity | Deputy DA’s decisions (remand, charging, bail requests) are actionable | Acts were prosecutorial and entitled to absolute immunity | Dismissal affirmed: absolute immunity applied |
| Failure-to-train | County failed to train employees, causing rights violations | No facts showing a policy or training deficiency plausibly caused violations | Dismissal affirmed: complaint lacked plausible factual support under Iqbal/Connick |
| Arrest / probable cause | Arrests were unlawful; no probable cause for solicitation/kidnapping attempt | Officers had arguable probable cause to believe solicitation/attempt occurred | Summary judgment affirmed: qualified immunity based on arguable probable cause |
| Excessive bail | Bail increase was improper and attributable to police conduct | Bail increase was judicial act; no evidence officers misled judge | Summary judgment affirmed: judge’s independent decision broke causation chain |
| Warrantless arrest & custody sequencing | Ismail was subject to a warrantless arrest in November 2010 | Timeline shows remand after hearing, warrant issued later; administrative arrest only | Summary judgment affirmed: no actionable warrantless arrest given custody timeline |
| Reconsideration & costs | (Argued on appeal) district court abused discretion by granting reconsideration and awarding costs | Reconsideration was proper based on documents; Rule 54(d) presumes costs to prevailing party | Affirmed: Rule 60(b) and Rule 54(d) rulings not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (foundational recognition of prosecutorial absolute immunity)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure-to-train § 1983 standard requires showing a policy or obvious need)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard for § 1983 claims)
- Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011) (arguable probable cause and qualified immunity standard)
- Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2007) (judicial acts supersede law enforcement causation)
- Rigney v. Hendrick, 355 F.2d 710 (3d Cir. 1965) (custody status can render subsequent arrest formality nonactionable)
- Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for relief under Rule 60(b))
- Martin v. California Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 560 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (presumption favoring awarding costs under Rule 54(d))
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for dismissal motions)
- Chale v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment)