WALTER KURKA V. JOHN PROBST, No. 15-35121 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER J. KURKA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35121 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00034-SLG MEMORANDUM* JOHN PROBST; BEN JAFFA, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Walter J. Kurka appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims relating to misdemeanor criminal charges against him in Alaska state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d * 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). 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity); Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and prosecutorial immunity). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Probst, an Alaska state trooper, on the basis of qualified immunity because Kurka failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Probst’s investigation of Kurka violated Kurka’s constitutional rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Kurka’s claims against defendant Jaffa on the basis of prosecutorial immunity because Jaffa’s actions were performed in his role as a state prosecutor. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 for his conduct in pursuing a criminal prosecution insofar as he acts within his role as an advocate for the State and his actions are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” (citation and internal quotation 2 15-35121 marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 15-35121
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
