Gibson

Gibson v. City of Portland

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 29, 202624-1663California23,603 words

Opinion

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH GIBSON and RUSSEL No. 24-1663

SCHULTZ,

D.C. No. 3:23- Plaintiffs-Appellants, cv-00833-HZ

v.

OPINION

CITY OF PORTLAND;

MULTNOMAH COUNTY;

MULTNOMAH COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE;

CHRISTOPHER TRAYNOR; ROD

UNDERHILL; MIKE SCHMIDT;

BRAD KALBAUGH; and SEAN

HUGHEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 1, 2025 Portland, Oregon

Filed January 29, 2026 Before: Jay S. Bybee, Kenneth K. Lee, and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bybee; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Forrest

SUMMARY *

Shotgun Pleading / Immunity

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of an action alleging that Defendants-Appellees—Multnomah County, the City of Portland, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office (MCDA), two former district attorneys, two deputy district attorneys, and a Portland police detective—conspired to arrest and prosecute Plaintiffs without probable cause to silence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.