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 B LUM B ER G, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. B R IAN HEW ITT; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-56568 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05072-GAFAJW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2014 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GOULD, a n d B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s . Form e r C a lifornia

sta te prisone r Pa

ul B l um be rg a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c ivil rights viola

tions a rising from

his sta te c ourt c onvic t ion for a s sa ult with a se m ia utom atic fire arm , atte m

p te d m urde r, and c onspira c y

to c om m i t m urde r. W e 

# F IL ED APR 07 2015 M OLLY C. 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 9th C ir. R . 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dism issa l unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(c ). Be rg v . Popham , 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th C ir. 2005). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Gue rre ro v . Gate s , 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th C ir. 2006). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d B lum

be rg’ s m a lic ious prose c ution c la im s a s He c k

-barre d be c a

use a favora ble judgm e nt on the se c la i m s would ne c e ssa rily im ply the inva lidity

of his guilty

ple a c onvic tion for a

tte m pte d m urde r. Se eid. at 703-04. To the

e xte nt tha

t B lum be rg’ s othe r c la im s a

re pre m ise d on his a lle ge d a c tua l innoc e nc e , the y fa il for the sa m e re a son. Howe v e r, B lum

b e rg’ s proc e dura l due proc e ss a n d c onspira c y

c la im s a re pre m ise d at

le a st in pa

rt on “ B rady viola

tions”and “ fa

bric ation of e v ide nc e ” in B lum be rg’ s 1998 c onvic tion, whic h ha s be e n re ve rse d, a

nd his la t e r guilty ple a m ay have be e n “ c o m

ple t e ly insula te d from ” de fe nda

nts’ a lle ge d viola

tions. J ac k son v . Barne

s , 749 F.3d 755, 759-60 (9th C ir. 2014) (Fifth Am e ndm e nt viola tion c la im s a ga inst c ounty she riff’ s de pa

rtm e nt a nd de puty we re not He c k

ba rre d be c a use the c rim ina l de fe nda

nt wa s re c onvic te d

without use

of the e vide nc e obta ine d in viola

tion of his c o nstitutiona

l rights). W e the re fore re ve rse and re m and for the distric t c ourt to c onside r if a n d to wha t e xte nt B lum

be rg’ s ple a

to the c rim e of atte m pte d m urde r a ffe c t s his § 1983 c la i m s . Se e Rosale s-Martine z v . Palme r ,

1 2 - 5 6 5 6 8 2753 F.3d 890, 899 (9th C ir. 2014) (re m anding for the distric t c ourt to c onside r,

am ong othe r things, whe the r fa c ts a lloc ute d to by pla intiff a s pa

rt of his guilty

ple a are i nc onsiste nt with the

a lle gations of plai ntiff’ s § 1983 a c tion). To the e xte nt tha

t B lum be rg’ s c la im s a ga i nst de fe nda nt He witt a

rise from He witt’ s a lle ge d pe rjury , dism issa l of B lum be rg’ s c la im s wa s prope r be c a use a bsoluteim

m unity prote c ts a

polic e offic e r te stify ing a s a witne s s. S e e Paine v . C ity of Lompoc , 265 F.3d 975, 981-82 (9th C ir. 2001) (disc ussing witne ss im m unity). The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , and RE M ANDE D.

1 2 - 5 6 5 6 8 3