Steven Peck v. Margaret Hinchey, 655 F. App'x 534

Background

Phoenix Police Department officers were criminally investigated; charges were later dismissed and officers sued investigators Hinchey (state investigator) and Veach (internal PPD investigator) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Arizona law for fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution.
District court granted Hinchey’s motion to dismiss (finding absolute immunity for several claims) and granted summary judgment for Veach; plaintiffs appealed.
Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint after the court’s scheduling-order deadline; the district court denied leave as untimely under Rule 16.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal as to Count VI (Hinchey) but reversed as to Counts I–III, holding those claims alleged non‑testimonial out‑of‑court fabrication not protected by absolute immunity.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of leave to amend for lack of good cause and affirmed summary judgment for Veach because plaintiffs failed to show causation (that Veach’s conduct was actively instrumental in causing criminal charges).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hinchey is entitled to absolute witness immunity for Counts I–III and VI	Hinchey’s grand jury testimony and related acts are protected; claims are tied to her testimony	Hinchey argued absolute immunity for grand jury testimony and preparatory activities	Court affirmed immunity for Count VI but reversed for Counts I–III — claims alleging non‑testimonial, out‑of‑court fabrication are not absolutely immune
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend after scheduling deadline	Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the complaint to cure defects	Hinchey argued plaintiffs missed multiple prior chances and failed to show good cause under Rule 16	Affirmed — denial not an abuse of discretion; plaintiffs had three prior chances and offered no good cause
Whether Veach is liable for fabrication of evidence (Devereaux claim)	Plaintiffs alleged Veach fabricated evidence that led to criminal charges	Veach argued her investigation was internal (policy violations), incomplete, and did not cause criminal charges	Affirmed summary judgment for Veach — plaintiffs failed to show Veach’s conduct caused initiation of criminal proceedings
Whether Veach is liable for malicious prosecution	Plaintiffs argued investigation led to prosecution and was malicious	Veach argued she was not actively instrumental in initiating charges; AG’s office knew investigation was incomplete	Affirmed summary judgment for Veach — no genuine dispute that Veach’s acts caused the prosecution

Key Cases Cited

Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) (grand jury witnesses have absolute immunity for testimony and preparatory activities)
Lisker v. City of L.A., 780 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015) (investigative materials not inextricably tied to testimony may fall outside absolute immunity)
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (constitutional claim for prosecution based on deliberately fabricated evidence)
Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) (malicious prosecution requires showing defendant was actively instrumental in causing initiation of proceedings)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 16 good‑cause standard for modifying scheduling orders)
Szajer v. City of L.A., 632 F.3d 607 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Watson v. Weeks, 436 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of dismissal)