Theodore Heinemann, I v. Daniel Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914

Theodore Heinemann, a passenger on an international United Airlines flight, was involved in an altercation with flight attendants and was later criminally charged in King County, Washington.
Heinemann sued United in state court; United removed the case (diversity) and obtained summary judgment under the Montreal Convention; Heinemann then sued King County Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Satterberg in federal court, pro se.
Satterberg moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the Montreal Convention does not preclude state criminal actions, (2) no personal involvement to support § 1983 liability, and (3) absolute prosecutorial immunity for filing the criminal complaint.
Heinemann did not file any opposition to the summary judgment motion; the district court granted the motion, citing Local Civil Rule 7(b)(2) (treating failure to oppose as an admission) and stating it had reviewed the merits.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit addressed (1) whether a local rule permitting summary judgment by default conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and (2) whether summary judgment was warranted on the merits (focusing on prosecutorial immunity).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may grant summary judgment solely because the non‑movant failed to respond under a local rule	Heinemann: Rule 56 forbids summary judgment by default; local rule cannot supply such a basis	Satterberg: District court properly relied on local rule to treat failure to oppose as admission and grant judgment	The Ninth Circuit: Local rule permitting grant of summary judgment by default conflicts with amended Rule 56 and cannot authorize SJ by default; court must assess the motion and supporting materials on the merits
Whether Satterberg was entitled to summary judgment on the merits (absolute prosecutorial immunity)	Heinemann: Filing the criminal complaint was improper (state court lacked jurisdiction); argued immunity should not cover acts outside traditional prosecutorial role (raised at argument)	Satterberg: Filing the charge is a prosecutorial function protected by absolute immunity	The Ninth Circuit: Affirmed SJ on the merits—filing criminal charges is protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity; Heinemann did not allege non‑prosecutorial conduct or seek Rule 56(d) relief or amendment

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutorial immunity protects initiation of prosecution)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (Advisory Committee Notes are a reliable source for interpreting Federal Rules)
Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
Marshall v. Dates, 44 F.3d 722 (de novo review to determine conflict between local and federal rules)
Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103 (de novo review of summary judgment)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (absolute immunity does not extend to certain prosecutorial acts outside traditional role)