Foster

Foster v. Ball

Good Law
79 F. App'x 263
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 20, 2003No. 02-16724California880 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*264 MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff/Appellant Lionel Foster, M.D., claims malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against California Medical Board Investigator James Ball. Dr. Foster asserts that because Dr. Foster is black, Ball intentionally excluded exculpatory evidence from Ball’s investigation report on a Medical Board complaint against Dr. Foster. The district court granted summary judgment for Ball, and we affirm.

Dr. Foster cannot recover for malicious prosecution under section 1983 unless the prosecution was conducted with the intent to deprive Dr. Foster of his constitutional rights. Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 , 1189 (9th Cir.1995); Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 562 (9th Cir.1987) (“an exception exists to the general rule [that malicious prosecution is not actionable under section 1983] when a malicious prosecution is conducted with the intent to deprive a person ... of constitutional rights.”).

Dr. Foster asserts that Ball violated Dr. Foster’s constitutional right to equal protection. 1 For Dr. Foster to establish an equal protection violation, there must be evidence that Ball acted with the intent to discriminate against Dr. Foster on the…

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.