N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT R ANDALL FONTANA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF AUB U R

N e t a l., De fe nda

nts, and SGT. JAM ES NOR

DENGER , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-35784 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00245-JC C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat 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 M arc h 7, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , IKUTA, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED
MAR 09 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff R anda ll Fonta na tim e ly a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s grant of
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nt Se rge ant Ja

m e s Norde nge r on Pla intiff’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la i m s of unla wful a rre st a n d m a lic ious prose c ution. R e vie wing de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s ruling tha t Norde nge r is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity
and vie wing the fa c ts in thelight m ost fa vora ble to Pla intiff, R e z a

v. Pe arc e , 806 F.3d 497, 502 (9th C ir. 2015), we a ffirm
. 1 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t Norde n ge r is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity on the unla

w ful a rre st c la im . Give n the fa c ts known to Norde nge r— inc l uding thethre ate ning na ture of Pla intiff’ s sta

te m e nts, the i r proxim ity in tim e to the Lake wood killings, the re lia bility of the nam e d c itiz e n inform an t who wa s inte rvie w e d by offic e rs, a

n d the re ports of Pla intiff’ s poststa te m e nt c onduc t— i t wa s " re a sona bly argua ble that the re wa s proba

ble c a use for
arre st." R ose nba

um v. W a shoe C ty ., 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r
c uriam ) (e m

pha s is om i tte d).

1 B e c a use the distric t c ourt c orre c t ly rule d on qua lifie d im

m unity , we ne e d not a nd do not a d dre s s the c ourt’ s a lte rnat ive ground for gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt— issue pre c lusion. Also, be c a use Pla intiff’ s ope ning brie f c ha lle nge s the sum m ary judgm e nt only

a s to Norde nge r, we do not a d dre ss the sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the othe r De fe nda

nts. Se e Sm ith v. M arsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (holding tha t a rgum e nts not ra ise d in a

pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f ge ne ra lly are wa ive d). 22. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t Norde n ge r is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity on the m a lic i ous prose c ution c la im
. The e v ide nc e doe s not disc lose

" wrongful m otive s or re c kle ss disre ga rd of" Pla i ntiff’ s rights. Sta te v. C he nowe th, 158 P.3d 595, 602 (W a sh. 2007). Plaintiff ha s not ove rc om e the ordina ry pre s um ption tha t the de c ision to file

c rim ina l c ha

rge s " re s ult[e d] from

an inde pe nde nt de te rm ination on the pa rt of the prose c utor, [whic h] pre c lude s lia bility for those who pa

rtic ipate d in theinve stiga tion or file d a

re port tha

t re sulte d in the initia tion of proc e e dings." Awa bdy v. C ity of Ade la nto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th C ir. 2004). AFFIRM E D.

3