Higginbotham
Higginbotham v. King
Opinion
Opinion
Yegan, J.
Robert W. Higginbotham appeals from a judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) after the trial court ruled that it failed to state a cause of action. We affirm. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the complaint can be amended to allege a cognizable damage. (WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller (9th Cir. 1996) 80 F.3d 1315, 1319-1320 .)
Facts
On September 2, 1992, the San Luis Obispo Narcotics Task Force arrested appellant, a prominent eye surgeon, for cultivating marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358.) After appellant was booked, Narcotics Task Force Officer Paul King made a statement to the news media that appeared in the Telegram-Tribune, a local newspaper.
On August 17, 1993, a jury convicted appellant of marijuana cultivation following an 11-week trial. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358.) Appellant appealed the conviction and filed the instant action against respondents, King and the State of California, seeking damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .) The complaint alleged that King’s statements “were all false and in a community the size of San Luis Obispo created an immediate impression of guilt for the crime for…