NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORI WALLENDER; DANIEL

WALLENDER

,

Plaintiffs

- Appellant s ,

v.

HARNEY COUNTY; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 2 1

- 35238

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 00004

- SU

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13 , 202 2 ** Portland, Oregon

Before: CHRISTEN and SUNG , Circuit Judges, and RAYES, * * * District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument

. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Lori and Daniel Wallender sued Harney County Assistant District Attorney

Ryan Hughes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Hughes violated their Fourth

Amendment 1 rights by deceptively obtaining a grand jury indictment against them. 2

They appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing their claim without leave to

amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a dismissal for

failure to state a claim de novo , and a denial of leave to amend for an abuse of

discretion. Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc. , 953 F.3 d 567, 572

– 73 (9th Cir. 2020).

We affirm.

1. The district court properly dismissed the Wallenders’ complaint against

Hughes because prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for

seeking indictments before grand juries. See Burns v. R eed , 500 U.S. 478, 490 n.6

(1991); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty.

, 693 F.3d 896, 91 2

– 13 (9th Cir. 2012); Milstein v.

Cooley , 257 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001); Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Nash

1 The Wallenders’ claim technically arises under the Fourteenth Amendment, “which incorporated the protections of the Fourth Amendment against the States.”

Torres v. Madrid , 141 S.Ct. 989, 997 (2021).

2 The Wallenders sued several defendants but voluntarily dismissed their claims against all except Hughes and Harney County. The Wallenders’ sole claim against Harney Count y alleged municipal liability under § 1983 and Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Yet the Wallenders’ appellate briefs do not include any ar gument as to this claim. T heir opening brief does not even identify it as an issue on appeal. Because we do not consider matters not distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, see Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), this dec ision addresses only the claim against Hughes

.3

Holmes , 169 F.3d 636, 643 (9th Cir. 1999); Sanders v. City and C ounty of San

Francisco , 226 Fed. App’x 687, 690 ( 9th Cir. 2007)

.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend

because the Wallenders’ proposed amendments are futile. See Gardner v. Martino

,

563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009). T he Wallenders attempt to evade absolute

prosecutorial immunity by alleging that Hughes acted in an investigative role before

the grand jury, rather than as an advocate, but their proposed amended complaint

allege s no facts supporting this contention. To state a plausible claim to relief, a

plaintiff must plead “more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). T he Wallenders’ proposed amended complaint

fail s to clear this b ar.

AFFIRMED