Eric Pierson v. County of Storey , 682 F. App'x 577 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC PIERSON, No. 15-15646
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00598-MMD-
VPC
v.
COUNTY OF STOREY, a political MEMORANDUM*
subdivision of the State of Nevada; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Eric Pierson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the
filing of a criminal complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 287 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Pierson’s federal
and state law malicious prosecution claims because Pierson failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants brought the action
without probable cause. See id. at 290 (explaining when a plaintiff is collaterally
estopped from relitigating a probable cause determination made at preliminary
hearing); Lester v. Buchanen, 929 P.2d 910, 912 (Nev. 1996) (elements of a
malicious prosecution claim under Nevada law).
We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Pierson’s First
Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and other state law claims because Pierson raises
only new arguments on appeal concerning the district court’s grounds for dismissal
and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s ruling on these claims.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not consider
arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal); Smith v. Marsh, 194
F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in
its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Pierson’s motion to reconsider (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15646