N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PAUL S. DANIELS; NANETTE S. DILLAR D, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C OUNTY OF ALAM EDA; ALAM EDA C OUNTY B OARD OF SUPER VISOR S; NATE M ILEY; SC O TT HAGGERTY; ALAM EDA C OUNTY AUDITOR
C ONTR OLLER AGENC Y; PATRIC K J. O’ C ONNELL,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and KEITH C AR SON; RIC HARD VALLE; W ILM A C HAN, C ounty

Supe rvisor; SUSAN M UR

ANISHI; DIANA SOUZA; R OB ER T LIEB ER ,

De fe nda n ts. No. 19-17534 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-00602-JSC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia 

# FIL ED JAN 26 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.Ja c que line Sc ott C orle y , M a gistra te Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 12, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd W HALEY, ** Distric t Judge
. Pa ul Da nie ls a nd Na ne tte Dilla

rd a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing the i r m a lic i ous- a

nd re ta l iatory -prose c ution c la im s, whic h the y brought unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983. Thec ouple argue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously re lie d on C a lifornia la w— inste a d of fe d e ra l la

w— to im pose a pre sum ption tha t the Ala m e da C ounty Distric t Attorne y

ha d proba

ble c a use to c ha rge the m in c onne c tion with
m isa p propria te d fe de ra l gra

n t funds. Alternative ly , the c o u ple c onte n ds tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in c onc luding tha t the ir c om

pla int fa ile d to a d e quat e ly c onne c t
any pa rtic ula r de fe nda nt to thedistric t

attorne y ’ s c ha

rging de c ision. The distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1331, 1343(a )(3), a nd we have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im unde r R ule 12(b)(6) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure
. C

u r tis v . Irw in Indus., Inc
. , 913 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th C ir. 2019). W e a ffirm
.

* * The Honora

ble R obe rt H. W

ha l e y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. 2The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly a pplie d C a lifornia

la w to find tha

t proba ble c a use e xiste d to c ha

rge Da nie ls a nd Dilla rd c rim ina lly . It is we ll se ttle d tha t the
e xiste nc e of proba

ble c a use doom s a

m a lic ious- or re ta lia

tory -prose c ution c la im
. Se e Hartman v . Moore , 547 U.S. 250, 265–66 (2006); Lassite r v . C ity of Bre me rton , 556 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th C i r. 2009). W e have una m biguously he ld that sta te la w de te rm ine s whe the r proba b le c a use e xiste d in a

sta te c ourt a c tion

“ be c a use we have inc orporate d the re le va nt e le m e nts of thec om

m on la w tort of
m a lic ious prose c ution into our a na ly sis unde r § 1983.” A w abdy v . C ity of Ade lanto , 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th C ir. 2004). Nothing a bout tha t a dm onition is dic t a , a nd it c le arly binds us he re . In “ C a lifornia , a s in virtua lly e v e ry othe r jurisdic t ion” prim a fa c ie e v ide nc e of proba ble c a use e x ists whe n a

de fe nda n t is he ld to a

nswe r to c rim ina l c ha

rge s a fte r a pre lim ina

ry he aring. Id. at 1067 (c iting H olliday v . Holliday , 55 P. 703, 704 (C a l. 1898)). Tha

t prim a fa c i e e vide nc e is only

re butte d if the prose c ution wa s

“ induc e d by

fra ud, c orruption, pe rjury , fa bric ate d e vide n c e , or othe r wrongful
c onduc t unde rtake n in ba d fa ith.” Id. (c ita tions omi tte d). If the c rim ina l c ha rge s re sult in a c onvic tion, theprim a

fa c ie pre sum

p tion be c om e s c o nc lusive and m ay only be ove rc om e by a showing tha t the c onvic tion wa s obta ine d by fraud or pe rjury
. Plumle

y v . Moc k e tt , 79 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 822, 838 (C a l. C t. App. 2008). Even 3an a

p pe lla te re ve rsa l of the c rim ina l c onvic tion will not ne gate proba ble c a u se a bse nt one of those fa c tors. Se e Be alme ar v . S. C al. Edison C

o., Ltd. , 139 P.2d 20, 21 (C a l. 1943). Danie ls a nd Dilla rd ha v e not re butte d

e ithe r pre sum

ption. Thec ouple ha s not a lle ge d a

ny fa c ts de m onstra

ting tha t the ir c onvic tions we re the re sult of fra ud or pe rjury . Nor ha

ve the y a de quate ly a lle ge d tha

t the distric t attorne y ’ s de c i sion to
c ha rge the m wa s the re s ult of fra

ud, c orruption, pe rjury , or othe r ba d-fa ith m otive s. The c om p la int a lle g e s wide -spre a d c orruption within the Ala m e da C ounty gove rnm e nt. B ut the c ouple doe s not pla usibly a lle g e tha

t the de fe nda

n ts we re

“ a c tive ly instrum e nta l in c a using theinitia

tion of le ga l proc e e dings.” Se e Aw abdy , 368 F.3d a

t 1067. And where the c om pla int doe s a lle g e spe c ific fa c ts re late d to the distric t attorne y ’ s de c ision to c ha rge the c ouple , the a l le gations a re too a tte nuate d to ha ve be e n “ instrum e nta l ” to the c ha rging de c ision. Id. Alte rnative ly , the c ouple fa ile d to a lle ge spe c ific fa c ts ty i ng a ny pa rtic ula r de fe nda n t to thedistric t attorne y ’ s c ha rging de c ision. To sta

te a c la im in a § 1983
a c tion, a pla intiff m

ust ple a d fa c ts showing tha t e a c h de fe n da nt’ s “ own individua

l
a c tions . . . viola

te d the C onstitution.” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). The c lose st the c om

pla int c om e s to pla

usibly c onne c ting a

pa rtic ula r de fe nda nt to the d istric t att orne y ’ s c ha rging de c i sion is tha

t one c ounty

boa rd m e m b e r 4re c o m

m e nde d tha

t the distric t attorne y

inve stiga t e Dilla rd for a l le ge dly
m isa p propria ting fe de ra l gra

nt funds in M arc h 2011. Eve n a ssum ing tha t the de fe nda n t spe c i fic a lly

a ske d the distric t attorne y to c ha rge the c o uple , we pre sum e that a distric t att orne y ’ s c ha

rging de c ision “re sult[e d] from an inde pe nde nt de te rm i nation on the

pa rt of the prose c utor.” Aw abdy , 368 F.3d a t 1067. The isola te d a lle gation he re doe s not re but tha t pre sum p tion a nd ha s not “ nudge d [the
c ouple ’ s] c l a im s . . . a c ross the line from c o nc e iva ble to pla usible .” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 680 (c ita

tions omitte d). AFFIRM E D.

5