N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HR ISTOPHER

ALEXANDER , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF M ESA, a politic a l subdivision of the State of Ariz ona ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-17461 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00754-SPL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste ve n Pa ul Loga n , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 28, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ILLSTON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED SEP 07 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * The Honora

ble Susa n Illston, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.C hristophe r Ale xa nde r (“ Ale x ande r” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his c la im s a ga inst theC ity of M e sa (the “ C ity ” ), B rian Truc hon (“ T ruc hon” ), Je ffre y Ja c obs (“ Ja c obs” ), an d the Unite d State s. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ale xa

nde r’ s c la im s a g a i nst the C ity unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983. Thedistric t c ourt ha d dismi sse d the se c la im s with pre j udic e in a

n e arlie r orde r. Ac c ordingly , Ale xa nde r wa s ba

rre d by the doc trine of re s judic ata

from ra ising the m

a g a in. Fe de rate d De

p’t Store s, Inc . v . Moitie , 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981) (“ A fina l judgm e nt on them e rits of a n a c tion pre c lude s the p artie s or the ir privie s from re litiga ting issue s tha

t we re or c ould ha

ve be e n
ra ise d in tha

t a c tion.” ). 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ale xa

nde r’ s c la im of inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss a ga inst the C ity and the Unite d State s a s tim e ba rre d. Se e Ariz . R e v . Stat. § 12-542(1) (two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions for pe rsona l injurie s); Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 12-821 (one -y e ar sta tute of lim ita

t ions for
a c tions a g a inst publice ntitie s). At thelate st, Ale xa nde r le arne d of the c onduc t tha t gave rise to his IIED c l a im whe n his c onvic tion wa s ove rturne d on De c e m be r 21, 2010. B ut he did not c o m m e nc e this a c tion until 2012; he volunta rily dism isse d it in 2012; a nd he did not re file until 2014. 23. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ale xa

nde r’ s c la im a ga inst Truc hon for m a l ic ious prose c ution under Biv e ns v . Six Unk now n Age nts of the Fe de ral Bure au of N

arc otic s , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Alexa n de r fa ile d to ple a d tha

t Truc hon ha d a

ny pe rsona l involve m e nt in or took a ny dire c t a c tion to ai d the inve stiga tion. Truc h on “ m ay not be he l d a c c o unta ble for the m isde e d s of [his]
a ge nts.” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009). 4. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ale xa

nde r’ s c la im a ga inst Ja c o bs for m a lic ious prose c ution under 42 U.S.C . § 1983. Though Ja c obs wa s a

n
e m ploy e e of the C ity , Unite d State s Attorne y John S. Le ona rdo c e rtifie d

tha t he
wa s a c ting a s an e m

ploy e e of the Fe de ra l B ure a u of Inve stiga

tion, a nd a c t ing within thesc ope of tha

t e m ploy m e nt, a t the tim e of the a lle ge d m isc o nduc t, whic h
c re ate s a re butta ble pre sum

ption tha t he wa s a fe de ra l e m

ploy e e at the re le va

nt tim e . Ale xa

nde r ha s fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts tha t would re but the pre s um

ption tha t Ja c o bs wa s not a c ting a s a fe de ra l e m

ploy e e unde r c olor of sta

t e la w. Be l l Atlantic C orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). AFFIRM E D.

3