
    Randles P. TOMPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON; Cindy North Jones; Ozzie Knezovich, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-35336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 3, 2010.
    
    Filed June 9, 2010.
    Richard David Wall, Richard D. Wall, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert B. Binger, Esquire, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This lawsuit arises from Detective Cindy North-Jones’s arrest of Randles Tompkins on April 17, 2009 on the charge of stalking Stephanie Janzen. Tompkins brought a claim in the Eastern District of Washington under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that North-Jones arrested him without probable cause. On appeal, Tompkins challenges the district court’s order granting summary judgment to North-Jones. Tompkins does not challenge the district court’s order as to the other defendants.

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. North-Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because she reasonably concluded that she had probable cause to arrest Tompkins for the crime of stalking. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine the presence of any issues of material fact. See Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004).

A person commits the crime of stalking, under Washington law, when: (1) the stalker intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person; (2) the person being harassed is placed in reasonable fear for themselves or another person; and (3) the stalker intends, knows, or reasonably should know that the person being harassed is intimidated or afraid. Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.46.110(1).

A No-Contact Order had been issued against Tompkins after a full hearing. Janzen’s court-appointed legal guardian, Charlotte Wolverton, repeatedly expressed to the police a fear that Tompkins was a threat to Janzen. Tompkins’s own statements to the police confirmed his attempts to contact Janzen despite the No-Contact Order. Additionally, it was reported to North-Jones that Tompkins tried to visit Janzen while she was in the hospital and ignored her requests that he leave. “Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person.” Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.46.110(4).

Having determined that North-Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because she reasonably concluded that she had probable cause to arrest Tompkins for stalking, we decline to decide whether she actually had probable cause. See Pearson v. Callahan, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the result. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     