Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01226/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01226-3/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 to close this action. ECF 

No. 38. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed this Court’s disposition with the exception of the 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claims. Vang v. Decker, 807 F. App’x 728 

(9th Cir. 2015).

In reversing and remanding this Court’s dismissal of those claims, the Ninth 

Circuit explained that malicious prosecution claims in California require that the plaintiff 

prove, inter alia, that the prosecution terminated in his or her favor. Id. at 729. The 

Ninth Circuit elaborated:

///

///

Case 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC Document 48 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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establish that the charges were withdrawn on the basis of a 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 Ninth Circuit found that the criminal 

prosecution of Plaintiffs was dismissed 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 Ninth Circuit remanded the case with 

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

Neither Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) nor Defendants’ Reply to 

Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 36) address the issue on which the Ninth Circuit has 

remanded this case. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) 

days of the date this Order is electronically filed, Defendants shall file a brief addressing

whether the charges against Plaintiffs were withdrawn on the basis of a compromise 

among the parties or for a cause that was not inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ guilt. Plaintiffs

may file a reply to Defendants’ brief not later than ten (10) days after the filing of 

Defendants’ brief. Neither filing, including all exhibits and declarations, shall exceed ten 

(10) pages.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC Document 48 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Additionally, Plaintiffs have filed in this Court a “request that the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals publish its recent decision in this case . . . .” ECF No. 46. Because 

this Court does not have the authority to grant such a request, Plaintiffs’ request is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC Document 48 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3