Heinemann v. Satterberg, No. 12-35404 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff was criminally charged, plaintiff filed a civil action against United Airlines in state court, alleging that its personnel falsified police reports, falsely diagnosed an epileptic seizure, and threatened him with an ice mallet, among other things. United removed the case to district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The court granted United's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff then filed the present action against defendant, the Prosecuting Attorney of King County, contending that he had no jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint against plaintiff. Defendant moved for summary judgment, plaintiff did not file any response, and the district court granted the motion. Plaintiff did not file anything further in the district court, and, instead, filed this appeal to the court. The court agreed with plaintiff that, under the Federal Rules, a motion for summary judgment could not be granted based on a failure to file an opposition to the motion, regardless of any local rule that suggested the contrary. However, on the merits, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment where defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on any of his three arguments presented in his motion.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Civil Procedure. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a civil action brought by an airline passenger against the Prosecuting Attorney for King County who had filed a criminal complaint against the passenger for an altercation that occurred on a United Airlines flight between the passenger and two flight attendants. The panel first held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, in its current form, prohibits a district court from granting a motion for summary judgment by default based upon a local court rule when an opposing party fails to respond. The panel held that because the local rule at issue in this case, Western District of Washington Rule 7(b)(2), conflicted with Rule 56, it could not provide a valid basis for granting a motion for summary judgment. The panel nevertheless affirmed the district’s grant of summary judgment on the merits, holding that the King County Prosecuting Attorney was entitled to prosecutorial immunity for his decision to initiate the prosecution against plaintiff.
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.