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

VLADIK B YKOV,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. STEVEN G. R OSEN, a

nd his m a rita l c om m unity ; e t a l ., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-35929 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00713-JC C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 27, 2017 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS a nd M c K EOW N, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED
JUN 29 2017 M O LLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Vla dik B y kov a ppe a ls p ro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his 42 U .S.C
. § 1983 a c tion, whic h a lle ge d fe de ra l a nd sta te la w viola tions in c onne c tion with the im

position a nd e nforc e m e nt of proba t i on conditions. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l unde r Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Tay lor v . Ye e , 780 F.3d 928, 935 (9th C ir. 2015). W e a ffirm in pa rt, va c a te in pa

rt, a n d re m a n d
. I The distric t c o urt prope rly dism isse d without leav e t o a m e nd B y kov’ s
c ons t i t u tiona l right-to-m e dic a l -priva c y c la im s for m o ne ta ry da m a ge s a ga inst Judge R ose n a nd Offic e r R oge rs be c a use t hey a

re e ntitle d to j udic ia l a nd qua s i-judic ia l im m unity , re spect iv e l y . Duv all v . C ounty of K

itsap , 260 F.3d 1 124, 1133 (9th C ir. 2001) (de sc ribing fa c tors re le va nt to whe the r a n a c t is judic ia l in na ture a nd the re fore subje c t to judic ia l im

m unity ). II The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d B y kov’ s c onstitutiona l right-to-m e dic a lpriva c y c la im a ga inst the C ity of Se a t t l e b ecau s e a m unic i pa lity m a y not be he ld vic a riously lia ble for i ts e m

ploy e e s’ a lle ge d c onstitutiona l viola tions, a n d the a m e nde d
c om pla i nt fa ils to a lle ge a

ny fa c ts showing tha t Se a ttle ha d a p o l icy o r cu stom that
c a use d B y k ov’ s a l le ge d injury
. Bd. of C ty
. C omm’rs v . B r o wn , 520 U.S. 397, 403
2(1997) (“ [A] m u nic ipa lity m a y not be hel d l i a ble unde r § 1983 sole l y be c a use i t
e m ploy s a tortfe a sor,” a nd pla intiff m ust “ ide ntify

a m unic i pa l polic y or c ustom that
c a use d the pla intiff’ s injury .” (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tions m a rks om itte d)). III The distric t c ourt prope rly dis m i s s ed B y kov’ s c la im s unde r Title II of the Am e ric a ns with Disa

bilitie s Ac t of 1990 (“ ADA” ) a n d the W a s hington L a

w Aga i nst Disc rim i na tion (“ W LAD” ) be c a use B y kov fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic i e nt to show a ny disc rim ina tory m otiva

tion for Judge R ose n’ s a nd Offic e r R oge rs’ s a c tions. Thompson

v . Dav is , 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th C ir. 2002) (ADA c la im re q uire s e s ta blishing that pla i ntiff wa s disc r i m i n a te d a ga inst due to pla intiff’ s disa bility ); Duv all , 2 60 F.3d a t 1 1 3 5 ( WL A D c la im re q

uire s e sta blishing tha t pla intiff’ s disa bility wa s a substa

ntia l fa c t or c a u sing disc rim i na tion). IV The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d B y kov’ s le ga l m a lpra c tic e c la i m s a ga i nst de fe nda n ts M urphy a n d Na y lor be c a use B y kov fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts s uffic ie nt to sta te pla u sibl e cla im s, a nd doc um e nts subje c t to judic ia l notic e c ontra dic t B y kov’ s
a lle ga tion tha t M urphy fa ile d to inform Judge R ose n tha t B y kov s igne d t he m e dic a l
re c o rds re le a se form
. Hize y v . C arpe nte r , 830 P.2d 646, 651–52 (W a sh. 1992) (listing
e le m e nts of le ga l m a lpra c tic e c la im ); Spre w e ll v . Golde n Stat e Wa r r iors , 2 66 F.3d
3979, 988 (9th C i r. 2001) (whe n re vie wing di sm issa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im , the
c ourt n e e d not “ a c c e pt a s tr ue al l eg a tions tha t c ontra dic t m a tte rs prope rly subje c t to judic ia l notic e ” ). Howe v e r, in o pposing the de fe nda nts’ m otions to dism iss his c la im s, B y kov
a lte rna tive ly re que ste d le a ve to a m e nd his c om pla i nt to c ure a ny de fic i en cie s. “ W e
a re ve ry c a

utious in a

pproving a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to de ny pro se litiga nts le a ve to a m e nd,” Flow e r

s v . Fir s t Haw aiian Bank

, 295 F.3d 9 66, 976 (9th C ir. 2002), a n d in t his c a se the distr i c t c ourt dism isse d B y k ov’ s c la im s without c onside ring whe the r to gra n t B y kov le a ve to a m e nd a ny c la im d ism isse d without pre judic e . T he re fore , we
va c a te the judgm e nt with re s pe c t to the le ga l m a l pra c tic e c la im s, the n e glige nt hiring
an d s u pe rvision c l a im , the c onstitutiona l right-to-m e d ic a l -priva c y c la i m a ga inst the C ity of Se a ttle , a nd the disc rim ina tion c la i m s brought unde r the ADA a nd the W LAD. On re m a nd, the distric t c ourt sha ll co n s id er whe t he r B y kov should be give n a n opportunity to a

m e nd t he se c la i m s or whe the r a m e ndm e nt would be futile
. Luc as v . De p’t of C orr. , 66 F.3d 245, 248–49 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ U nle s s it is a bsolute ly c le a r that
no a m e n dm e n t c a n c u re the de fe c t,
. . . a pro se litiga nt is e ntit l ed to notic e of the
c om pla i nt’ s de fic ie nc ie s a nd a n opportunity to a m e nd pr io r t o dism issa l of the
a c tion.” ). In a ddition, the distric t c o u r t s hall c onside r o n re m a nd whe the r B y kov
a lle ge d pla

usible c la im s for re lie f unde r the First Am e ndm e nt, the Fourth Am e ndm e nt,
4a nd the Fourte e nth Am e n dm e nt (proc e dura l due proc e ss a nd e qua l prote c tion). V T h e distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by ta king judic ia l no t i ce o f t h e W a shington State c ourt proc e e dings. Fe d
. R
. Evid. 2 0 1(b)(2); U nite d State

s v . W oods , 335 F.3d 993, 1000–01 (9th C ir. 2003) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w); U.S. e

x re l. Robinson Ranc he ria C

itize ns Co u n c il v . Borne o, Inc

. , 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th C ir. 1992) (a c ourt “ m ay t a k e notic e o f proc e e dings in othe r c ourts, both within a n d without the fe de ra l judic i a l sy ste m , if those proc e e dings have a d ire c t re la tion to
m a tte rs a t issue ” (c ita

tion om itte d)). W e do not c onside r a rgum e nts a nd a lle g a t ions ra ise d for the first tim e o n
a ppe a l. Padge tt v
. W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). B y kov’ s m ot i on for a wa ive r o f PAC ER fe e s , file d on De c e m be r 24, 2015, is de nie d. The pa rtie s sha ll be a r the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, RE M ANDE D.

5