T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T E VE C HR I S T E NS E N, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D O U G A R M S T R O N G , D et ec t i ve, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 35034 DC No . CV 0 9 - 1 8 9 BL W ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho B . L y nn W i nm i l l , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 13, 2012 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: H U G , T A S H IM A , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e t e c t i ve D oug A rm s tr ong of the B a nnoc k C ountyS he r i f f’ s D e pa rtm e nt appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

ors um m a ryj udgm e ntba s e d on qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . P l a i nt i f

f S t e ve C hr i s t e ns e n br oughtam a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on c l a i m a ga i ns tA rm s tr ong pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 1983, a f t e rhe w a s c ha r ge d a nd 

# FI LED MA Y22 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

a rr e s t e d f

orunl a w f

ul pos s e s s i on of

f i r e a rm s unde ra n I da ho s t a tut e tha tdi d not ap p lyto h im . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . Mi tchel l v. Fo rs y th , 472 U . S . 511, 530 ( 1985) . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of s um m a ryj udgm e ntde n o v o , M at tos v . A gar ano , 6 6 1 F . 3 d 4 3 3 , 4 3 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( e n b a n c ) , a n d we r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d . O urde c i s i on i n Sm idd

yv . V a rn e y, 66 5 F . 2d 26 1, 26 6 (9th C i r. 19 81 ), e s t abl i s he d ar e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on tha tthe de c i s i on t o f i l e ac r i m i na l c om pl a i nt re sul t s f rom the i nd ependentdet erm i nat i on of the prosecut or, i nsul at i ng the offi ce r tha ti ni t i a t e d the c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i on f r om l i abi l i ty . T hi s pr e s um pt i on of prosec ut ori al i nd ependence m aybe re bu tt ed w i th evi dence thatthe offi ce r

“ i m prop er l y e xert ed pres sure on the prosec ut or, kn ow i ng l y provi ded m is in f o rm a tio n to h im , c o n c e a le d e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e , o ro th e rw is e e n g a g e d in w r ongf ul orba d f

a i th c onduc ttha tw a s a c t i ve l yi ns trum e nt a l i n c aus i ng the i ni t i at i on of l egal proceedi ng s. ” A w a b d yv . C ityo

f A de la n to , 368 F . 3d 1062, 1067 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). “ S uch evi dence m ustbe subst ant i al . ” Ha r p e rv . Ci t

yo f L. A. , 533 F .3 d 1 0 1 0 , 1 0 2 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e lie d o n C h r is te n s e n ’s d e p o s itio n te s tim o n ya n d a f f id a v it t o h ol d thatthere w er e di sput ed i ss ues of m at er i al fa ctprec l ud i ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t. C h r is te n s e n ’s d e p o s itio n te s tim o n ya n d a f f id a v it in d ic a te d th a t h e to ld3

A rm s tr ong tha thi s c i vi l r i ght s ha d be e n r e s t or e d, tha the ha d be e n s o a dvi s e d by h is p ro b atio n o ff

icer , an d th at h e h ad p o ss es se d fire ar m s in th e p as t. A rm stro n g ’s r e p o rt d id n o t in c lu d e th e s e s ta te m e n ts . I n s te a d , it s ta te d th a t C h r is te n s e n to ld A rm s tr o n g h e w a s u n s u r e w h e th e rh is r ig h t to o w n f ir e a rm s h a d b e e n r e s to r e d . C hr i s t e ns e n’ s a c c ountof hi s c onve r s a t i on w i th A rm s tr ong i s nots uf f i c i e nt e v id e n c e to o v e r c o m e th e p r e s u m p tio n o f p r o s e c u to r ia l in d e p e n d e n c e . See N e w m a n v . Cn ty . o

f O r a n g e, 457 F . 3d 991, 994- 96 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . A rm s tr ong s t a t e d i n hi s pol i c e r e porttha tC hr i s t e ns e n’ s f e l onyc onvi c t i on da t e d ba c k t o 1977, a n d it is th e d a te o f

th a t c o n v ic tio n th a t m a d e th e I d a h o f ir e a rm s p o s s e s s io n s ta tu te i napp l i cabl e t o h i m ; the prosecut or thu s had the re l evantexcul pat ory e vi dence be f or e hi m w he n he m a de the de c i s i on t o c ha r ge C hr i s t e ns e n. B ec ause C hri st ense n fai l ed t o rebutthe pres um pt i on of prosec ut ori al i nde pe nde nc e , w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tA rm s tr ong w a s not e n title d to q u a lif

ie d im m u n itya n d r e m a n d f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s .