Ruben Odell Boulware v. California Department of Insurance Commissioner;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN ODELL BOULWARE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55836
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04325-DMG-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ruben Odell Boulware appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal
and state law claims related to workers’ compensation fraud charges against him
FILED
OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55836 2
that were dismissed before retrial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the dismissal of claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Boulware’s false arrest and retaliatory
prosecution claims because his employer’s apparently illegal failure to maintain
insurance coverage was not sufficient to allege that defendants lacked probable
cause to arrest or prosecute Boulware for workers’ compensation fraud. See Beck
v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853, 869 (9th Cir. 2008) (lack of probable cause is a
prerequisite to allege false arrest and retaliatory prosecution claims under the
Fourth and First Amendments, respectively).
Boulware waived any argument regarding the dismissal of his state law
malicious prosecution claim by failing to reallege the claim in his first or second
amended complaints. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.
1997) (plaintiff who fails to include dismissed claims in a superseding amended
complaint is deemed to have waived any error in the prior complaint’s dismissal).
Boulware’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --