Opinion ID: 1457749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The State Law Causes of Action

Text: The district court also granted summary judgment against Beck on his state law causes of action, relying upon California Civil Code § 43.55(a), which provides in pertinent part that: There shall be no liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer who makes an arrest pursuant to a warrant of arrest regular upon its face if the peace officer acts without malice and in the reasonable belief that the person arrested is the one referred to in the warrant. The district court held that Beck had not presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue as to whether the officers acted maliciously, so the statutory immunity applies. We disagree. [21] Under California law, [m]alice may be determined by taking into account all circumstances surrounding the arrest allegedly known to the arresting officer. McKay v. County of San Diego, 111 Cal. App.3d 251, 254, 168 Cal.Rptr. 442 (1980). Malice may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and is defined as that attitude or state of mind which actuates the doing of an act for some improper or wrongful motive or purpose. It does not necessarily require that the defendant be angry or vindictive or bear any actual hostility or ill will toward the plaintiff. Laible v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 157 Cal.App.3d 44, 53, 203 Cal. Rptr. 513 (1984) (quotation marks omitted). Moreover, liability for an unlawful arrest extends beyond the arresting officer if immunity is not present: A party who authorizes, encourages, directs or assists an officer to do an unlawful act, or procures an unlawful arrest, without process, or participates in the unlawful arrest or imprisonment is liable. Harden v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 215 Cal.App.3d 7, 15, 263 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1989) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). Applying these concepts, both Sergeant Mendenhall and Chief Thouvenell may be held liable for false arrest under California law if they acted maliciously. The evidence of retaliatory intent we have already surveyed is sufficient to allow a rational jury to find that both the officers acted for some improper or wrongful motive or purpose. Laible, 157 Cal.App.3d at 53, 203 Cal.Rptr. 513; see also id. at 54, 203 Cal.Rptr. 513 (It is for the trier of fact... to weigh the available inferences against[the officers'] profession of pure motives.). They are thus not immune under § 43.55(a).