Acharjee v. Riverside County Sheriff's Department

── Acharjee v. Riverside County Sheriff's Department ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASHISH ACHARJEE, No. 24-6480 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:23-cv-00112-HDV-MAR v. MEMORANDUM* RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; REMINGTON, Badge No. 4687, in his individual capacity; RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; MICHAEL HESTRIN, Cal Bar No. 200300, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Hernan Diego Vera, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 21, 2026** Before: RAWLINSON, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Plaintiff-Appellant Ashish Acharjee appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellees Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (“the Sheriff’s Department”), Deputy Sheriff Brian Remington (“Remington”), Riverside County Office of the District Attorney (“the District Attorney’s Office”), and District Attorney Michael Hestrin (“Hestrin”) (collectively, “Defendants”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Los Padres ForestWatch v. U.S. Forest Serv., 25 F.4th 649, 654 (9th Cir. 2022). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must decide whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Gant v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 614 (9th Cir. 2014). 1. Acharjee argues that a Deputy Sheriff and Hestrin committed “documentary and procedural fraud” and “fraudulently” acted pursuant to California Government Code Section 7282.5, which led to Acharjee’s “Extra Judicial Abduction.” Acharjee appears to be contending that a Deputy Sheriff or Hestrin cooperated with federal immigration authorities to facilitate Acharjee’s detention, but Acharjee points to no evidence supporting that contention. Acharjee fails to point to any evidence that the Deputy Sheriff or Hestrin provided 2 24-6480 information to federal immigration authorities, or, even if they did so, that those actions were unlawful. 2. Acharjee also argues that there was evidence that the District Attorney’s Office committed various “criminal acts, specifically and categorically, described as felony and misdemeanor level crimes in California Penal Codes.” To the extent Acharjee contends that the District Attorney’s Office committed fraud, his only support for this claim is his reference to a declaration by Deputy District Attorney Rachel Santos, which explains that an error on the date of a protective order was a mistake, not a fraudulent act. And Acharjee points to no crimes allegedly committed by the District Attorney’s Office, nor any evidence that would suggest that the District Attorney’s Office committed any crimes. 3. Acharjee contends that Hestrin and other staff at the District Attorney’s Office violated his constitutional and civil rights. But Acharjee does not identify which co