Brian Auchenbach v. County of Madera;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN AUCHENBACH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF MADERA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15306
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01645-DAD-
SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Brian Auchenbach appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising
from his arrest and criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15306
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Auchenbach’s malicious prosecution
claim against former District Attorney Keitz on the basis of prosecutorial immunity
because Auchenbach failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Keitz’s alleged
conduct was not “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal
process . . . .” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see Broam v. Bogan,
320 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prosecutor is absolutely immune from
liability for failure to investigate the accusations against a defendant before filing
charges.”).
The district court properly dismissed Auchenbach’s malicious prosecution
claims against defendants Anderson and Blehm because Auchenbach failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that former District Attorney Keitz did not
“exercise[] independent judgment in determining that probable cause for
[Auchenbach’s] arrest exist[ed] . . . .” Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266 (9th
Cir. 1981), overruled on other grounds by Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853,
865 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15306
The district court properly dismissed Auchenbach’s failure-to-train claim
against Madera County because Auchenbach failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that the County policymakers were personally involved in causing his injury,
were aware that any training program was inadequate, or that a pattern of similar
incidents existed. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61-62 (2011) (noting
that actual or constructive notice that a training program causes city employees to
violate citizens’ constitutional rights and a pattern of similar constitutional
violations by untrained employees are usually necessary for a failure-to-train
claim); Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) (county
may be liable under § 1983 “when the plaintiff was injured pursuant to an
expressly adopted official policy, a long-standing practice or custom, or the
decision of a final policymaker” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Auchenbach further
leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Chodos v. West Publ’g
Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and
noting that a district court’s discretion is particularly broad when it has already
granted leave to amend).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --