Mary Johnson v. Ron Wall , 520 F. App'x 622 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 05 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MARY JOHNSON; JAMES JOHNSON,                     No. 11-35528
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,           D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00031-RRB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    RON WALL; JESS CARSON; BRUCE
    BARNETT,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Alaska
    Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted May 24, 2013
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Appellants Johnson brought suit against officer-defendants under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1983
     for alleged judicial deception during the acquisition of a search warrant,
    which resulted in the search of their home. The district court granted summary
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    judgment in favor of the officer-defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.
    We review the district court’s decision de novo. Chism v. Washington, 
    661 F.3d 380
    , 386 (9th Cir. 2011).
    For the Johnsons’ judicial deception claim to survive a motion for summary
    judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, they “must 1) make a substantial
    showing of [the officers’] deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth
    and 2) establish that, but for the[ir] dishonesty, the [challenged search] would not
    have occurred.” Chism, 661 F.3d at 386 (quoting Liston v. Cnty. of Riverside, 
    120 F.3d 965
    , 973 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, not only did they fail to make a substantial
    showing that the officers made deliberate falsehoods or displayed a reckless
    disregard for the truth, but there was also sufficient evidence remaining to establish
    probable cause even after excising the facts in dispute. See Liston, 
    120 F.3d at
    972
    (citing Franks v. Delaware, 
    438 U.S. 154
     (1978)). The district court did not err
    when it granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
    Additionally, we lack jurisdiction to review the issue of attorney’s fees. “In
    a civil case . . . the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the
    district court within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.”
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). “[A] supplemental notice of appeal is required for us
    to have jurisdiction over an attorneys’ fees issue that becomes final subsequent to
    2
    the initial notice of appeal.” Hunt v. City of Los Angeles, 
    638 F.3d 703
    , 719 (9th
    Cir. 2011) (citation and emphasis omitted); see also Whitaker v. Garcetti, 
    486 F.3d 572
    , 585 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A party wishing to challenge the [later] attorney fees
    decision ‘must file a notice of appeal, or an amended notice of appeal’ specifying
    its appeal of that decision.”). No further action was taken here after the district
    court ruled on attorney’s fees.
    We AFFIRM the district court’s decision dismissing appellants’ claim on
    summary judgment and DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s award of
    attorney’s fees for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-35528

Citation Numbers: 520 F. App'x 622

Judges: Smith, Tallman, Tashima

Filed Date: 6/5/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023