Randles Tompkins v. Spokane County

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO UR T OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANDLES P. TOMPKINS, No. 09-35336

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00195-FVS v.

MEMORANDUM * SPOKANE COUNTY, Washington; CINDY NORTH JONES; OZZIE KNEZOVICH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Fred L. Van Sicµle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 3, 2010** Seattle, Washington

Before: ALARCMN, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This lawsuit arises from Detective Cindy North-Jones's arrest of Randles Tompµins on April 17, 2009 on the charge of stalµing Stephanie Janzen.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Tompµins brought a claim in the Eastern District of Washington under 42 U.S.C. y 1983, claiming that North-Jones arrested him without probable cause. On appeal, Tompµins challenges the district court's order granting summary judgment to North-Jones. Tompµins does not challenge the district court's order as to the other defendants.

We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. North-Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because she reasonably concluded that she had probable cause to arrest Tompµins for the crime of stalµing. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987).

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine the presence of any issues of material fact. See Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004).

A person commits the crime of stalµing, under Washington law, when: (1) the stalµer intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person; (2) the person being harassed is placed in reasonable fear for themselves or another person; and (3) the stalµer intends, µnows, or reasonably should µnow that the person being harassed is intimidated or afraid. Wash. Rev. Code y 9A.46.110(1).

A No-Contact Order had been issued against Tomµins after a full hearing. Janzen's court-appointed legal guardian, Charlotte Wolverton, repeatedly expressed to the police a fear that Tompµins was a threat to Janzen. Tompµins's own statements to the police confirmed his attempts to contact Janzen despite the No-Contact Order. Additionally, it was reported to North-Jones that Tompµins tried to visit Janzen while she was in the hospital and ignored her requests that he leave. 'Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalµer intends to intimidate or harass the person.' Wash. Rev. Code y 9A.46.110(4).

Having determined that North-Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because she reasonably concluded that she had probable cause to arrest Tompµins for stalµing, we decline to decide whether she actually had probable cause. See Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818 (Jan. 21, 2009).

AFFIRMED.

FILED Tompµins v. Spoµane County, Case No. 09-35336 JUN 09 2010 Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, concurring: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S . CO UR T OF AP PE A LS I concur in the result.