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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF M ODESTO; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-15277 D.C . No. 1:15-c v-00556-LJO-SKO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ILLSTON, ** Distric t Judge
. This is a

tra gic c a se . For 16 y e a

rs, Ge orge Souliote s wa s wrongly im prisone d for a c rim e he ha s c onte nde d from the outse t he did not c om m i t. He
a lle ge s tha

t the de fe nda

nts a re re sponsiblefor his wrongful im prisonm e nt be c a

use 

# FIL ED MAR 02 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * 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.Pa ge 2 of 5

the y fa bric ate d the ke y

e vide nc e a ga inst him

and withhe ld e x c ulpa

tory e vide nc e that m i ght ha ve c ha nge d the outc om e of the tria l. The a lle gations in his c om pla i nt would ha ve suffic e d to a

void dism issa l at the ple a ding sta g e be fore the Supre m e C ourt de c ide d Be ll Atlantic C orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007), a nd Ashc roft
v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009). B ut Souliote s ha s not a l le ge d suffic ie nt fa c ts to
satisfy the m ore de m a

n ding ple a ding sta

n da rd e sta blishe d by

those de c isions. For that re a son, we re luc t antly

a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his
a c tion with pre

judic e . W e note at the outse t tha

t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing Souliote s’ m otion for re lie f unde r R ule 60(b) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e d ure . W e the re fore c onfine our re v ie w to the a de qua c y of the a lle gations
c onta ine d in the First Am e nde d C om pla int, a lthough wewould re a c h the sa m e
re sult e ve n if the ne w a lle gations inc lude d in the propose d Se c ond Am e nde d C om pla int we re c o nside re d. The c ore a lle g ations in the c o m pla int a sse rt tha

t the de fe nda

nts fra m e d Souliote s by

fa bric ating Sa

ndova l’ s e y e witne ss ide ntific ation a s we ll a s the e xpe rt opinion te stim o ny

de c la ring tha t the fire wa s c a

use d by arson. Thosea lle gations
are n ot ba c ke d by

“ fa c tua l c onte nt tha

t a llows thec ourt to dra

w the re a sona

ble infe re n c e ” tha

t the de fe nda

nts fa bric ate d the e vide nc e in que stion. Iqbal , 556 U.S.Pa ge 3 of 5

at 678. Thec om

pla int forc e fully

a sse rts c onc lusions c onc e rning a l le ge d fa bric ation of e vide nc e , but tha t is no longer e n ough. To survive a m otion to dism iss, a pla intiff m

ust now a l le ge e nough unde rly ing fa c tua l m ate ria l from whic h the s tat e d c onc lusions may p l a usibly be infe rre d. Souliote s’ c om pla int fa i ls to
a lle ge the ne e de d fa c t

ua l m ate ria l, notwithsta

nding his a c c e ss to theinform ation
re ve a le d in le ngthy

and suc c e ssfully

litiga te d ha be a s proc e e dings tha

t e ve ntua lly le d to his re le a se . The sa m e de fic ie nc y

re quire s us to a ffirm

the dism issa l of Souliote s’ c la im s for suppre ssion of e vide nc e unde r Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or Arizona v . Youngblood

, 488 U.S. 51 (1988). The c om pla int a l le ge s tha

t the polic e fa ile d to disc lose a

ske t c h pre pa

re d by Sandova l a

nd a re c ording of the ir inte rvie w with he r. The c om

p la int furthe r a lle ge s tha

t this e vide nc e wa s e xc ulpa t ory and
m ate ria l be c a

use Sandova l’ s initia l de sc ription of the suspe c t a nd his ve hic le did not m atc h Souliote s or his ve h ic le . Tha t a lle g ation is insuffic i e nt without gre ate r fa c t ua l de ta il be c a

use at tria l the jury

le arne d tha

t Sa ndova l’ s initia l de s c ription of the s uspe c t a

nd his ve hic le did not m atc h Souliote s or his ve hic le , a nd she wa s
c ross-e xam ine d a

bout thosedisc re pa

nc ie s. Thus, to infer that the a lle g e dly suppre sse d e vide nc e m i ght ha ve be e n m ate ria l ( i.e
. , m ight ha

ve c ha nge d the outc om e of the tria l), we would ne e d to know some thing a b out the nature of thePa ge 4 of 5

disc re pa nc ie s re ve a l e d in the ske tc h a nd re c ording. Only

the n c ould we e ve n be gin to infe r that posse s sing theske tc h a nd re c ording would ha

ve a llowe d Souliote s’
c ounse l to m ount a

suffic ie n tly

m ore e ffe c tive c ross-e xam ination of Sa ndova l, suc h that the outc o m e of the tria l m ight ha ve be e n diffe re nt. The c om pla int is wholly de void of thene c e ssa

ry fa c tua l a lle gations on this sc ore . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Souliote s’ m a lic ious prose c ution c la i m . Souliote s wa s bound ove r for tria l following a pre lim ina

ry he aring, whic h e nta ils a fa c t ua l finding tha

t proba ble c a use e x iste d to prose c ut e him for the c ha

rge d offe nse s. Tha

t finding is ge

ne ra lly e n title d to pre c lusive e ffe c t in a subse que nt suit for m a lic i ous prose c ution, unle ss the pla intiff c a n pla usibly a lle ge tha

t e vide nc e pre s e nte d at the pre lim ina ry he aring wa s fa

bric ate d or tha

t m ate ria l e xc ulpa

tory
e vide nc e wa s withhe ld. W igev . C i ty of Los Ange le

s , 713 F.3d 1183, 1185–86 (9th C ir. 2013); Aw abdy

v . C i ty of Ade lanto , 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th C ir. 2004). As disc usse d a

bove , the c o m

pla i nt doe s not pla

usibly a lle ge e ithe r fa

bric ation of
e vide nc e or suppre ssion of m at e ria l e xc ulpa tory e vide nc e . As a

re sult, we ne e d not
re solve whe the r Souliote s c a n satisfy the favora

ble te rm ination e l e m e nt of his
c la im
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Souliote s’ re m a ining c l a im s for supe rvisory

lia bility , c onspira c y , a

nd lia bility unde r Mone ll v . De

partme nt ofPa ge 5 of 5

Soc ial Se rv ic e

s , 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The a lle gations supporting those c la im s, too, fa il to sa

tisfy the ple a ding sta

nda rd e sta blishe d by Tw ombly

and Iqbal
. De fe nda nts’ m o tion for judic ia l notic e (Doc ke t Entry 17) is G RANT E D
. AFFIRM E D.