Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01226/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01226-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NHIA KAO VANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEVEN DECKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC

ORDER

On April 8, 2013, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissed 

each of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, and directed the Clerk of the Court to close this 

action. ECF No. 38. Plaintiffs timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit, a panel of which subsequently affirmed this Court’s disposition with the 

exception of the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claims. Vang v. Decker, 

607 F. App’x 728 (9th Cir. 2015). For the following reasons, those claims are again 

DISMISSED.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Ninth Circuit’s decision explained that malicious prosecution claims in 

California require, inter alia, proof that the prosecution terminated in the plaintiff’s favor. 

Id. at 729. The Ninth Circuit elaborated:

In order for a plaintiff to prove that the prosecution terminated 

in his favor, he must generally establish that the prior 

proceedings terminated in such a manner as to indicate his 

innocence. A dismissal in the interests of justice satisfies this 

requirement if it reflects the opinion of the prosecuting party 

or the court that the action lacked merit or would result in a 

decision in favor of the defendant. Further, when such a 

dismissal is procured as the result of a motion by the 

prosecutor and there are allegations that the prior 

proceedings were instituted as the result of fraudulent 

conduct, a malicious prosecution plaintiff is not precluded 

from maintaining his action unless the defendants can 

establish that the charges were withdrawn on the basis of a 

compromise among the parties or for a cause that was not 

inconsistent with his guilt.

Id. (citations and internal formatting omitted).

Applying that law to the facts of this case, the appellate court found that the 

Government dismissed the criminal case against Plaintiffs in the interests of justice and 

that Plaintiffs had alleged fraudulent conduct in the underlying criminal prosecution. 

Such allegations “shifted the burden to the Defendants to show that the proceedings did 

not terminate as a result of Plaintiffs’ innocence.” Id. The remand order thus instructs 

this Court to “shift the burden to Defendants . . . .” Id. at 730. 

As a result, the question currently before this Court is whether Defendants have 

carried their burden to show that the criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs did not 

terminate as a result of Plaintiffs’ innocence. At the Court’s behest, Defendants briefed

the issue and submitted a declaration from United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner. 

ECF Nos. 48-49. Having reviewed Defendants’ filings, the Court finds that the criminal 

charges against Plaintiffs were withdrawn “for a cause that was not inconsistent with 

[Plaintiffs’] guilt.”

1

///

 1

 Defendants concede that the criminal charges were not withdrawn on the basis of a compromise 

among the parties. See Wagner Decl., ECF No. 49-1, at ¶ 13. 

Case 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

More specifically, Wagner avers that although there was both probable cause and 

sufficient evidence to prosecute Plaintiffs, the decision to dismiss the charges was based 

on a “cost-benefit analysis.” Wagner Decl., ECF No. 49-1, at ¶¶ 9, 11, 12. On the “cost” 

side, Wagner identifies the following considerations: (1) a series of adverse rulings 

suggested that the presiding judge was “markedly hostile to the government’s case”; 

(2) the presiding judge scheduled up to two weeks of evidentiary hearings related to 

Plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss and motions to suppress evidence; (3) an undercover agent 

that was “a critical witness for the prosecution” had never before testified in a contested

court hearing or trial; (4) prosecutors and agents had violated the terms of a search 

warrant, an error that “created a risk of suppression” of evidence; (5) the government 

“faced a fiercely contested trial against numerous defendants and considerable litigation 

on evidentiary issues”; and (6) the prosecution would have required the efforts, over the 

course of several years, of three Assistant United States Attorneys from the Eastern 

District of California, two trial attorneys from the Department of Justice’s National 

Security Division, and several agents and translators. Id. at ¶¶ 4-7, 9. Potential

“benefits,” on the other hand, were uncertain because Wagner suspected that even if the 

government prevailed at trial, “the court was very likely to impose minimal sentences on 

convicted defendants.” Id. at ¶ 8. Wagner thus concluded that “the benefits of further 

prosecution were outweighed by the costs and risks,” and he therefore recommended 

the dismissal of the criminal prosecution. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 9. 

The Court is convinced that the Government did not dismiss the criminal 

prosecution because Plaintiffs were innocent. Rather, the decision to terminate the 

criminal proceedings appears to have been based on two general concerns: that the 

Government might not prevail in the criminal action and, that even if the Government did 

prevail, the convictions and potentially “minimal sentences” might not justify the 

expenditure of resources. Neither of those concerns, however, is inconsistent with 

Plaintiff’s guilt. Indeed, according to Wagner, probable cause and evidence supported 

///

Case 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

all of the criminal charges, even when the Government moved for dismissal of the 

criminal proceedings. 

Because Defendants have carried their burden to show that the criminal 

proceedings did not terminate as a result of Plaintiffs’ innocence, Plaintiffs’ malicious 

prosecution claims are DISMISSED. Furthermore, because any amendment of those 

claims would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend. There being no further 

claims on which this action may proceed, Plaintiffs’ two pending motions (ECF Nos. 50, 

51) are DENIED as moot, and the motion hearing scheduled for February 25, 2016 is 

VACATED. This action shall remain closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2016

Case 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 02/23/16 Page 4 of 4