Cary Vandermeulen v. Thomas Leclaire ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARY VANDERMEULEN, No. 19-15273
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02062-JAT-DMF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THOMAS L. LECLAIRE, Superior Court
Judge (retired) County of Maricopa; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Cary VanDerMeulen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a variety of constitutional claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v.
Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey,
*
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).
512 U.S. 477 (1994)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed VanDerMeulen’s claims against
officers Walter and Tucker related to VanDerMeulen’s arrest and the search and
seizure of his property because success on these claims would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction, and VanDerMeulen failed to show that his
conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (if “a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate
that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).
The district court properly dismissed VanDerMeulen’s remaining claims
against officers Walter and Tucker, as well as his claims against Brinker, Shupe,
and Judges LeClaire, McMurdie, Swann, and Orozco, because these defendants are
entitled to absolute immunity. See Paine v. City of Lompoc, 265 F.3d 975, 980
(9th Cir. 2001) (“Witnesses, including police witnesses, are accorded absolute
immunity from liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings.”); Fry v.
Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 836-38 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that government
attorneys are subject to absolute immunity in both civil trials and criminal
2 19-15273
proceedings); Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988)
(explaining judicial immunity doctrine).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15273