Case ID: f-appx_385/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary S. THUILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-36013.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 22, 2010.
    Mary Susan Thuillard, Avilla, IN, pro se.
    Andrew Sean Biviano, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mary S. Thuillard appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging malicious prosecution under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim because Thuillard failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the prosecution was instituted or continued without probable cause or with malice. See Conrad v. United States, 447 F.3d 760, 767 (9th Cir.2006) (“In assessing the United' States’ liability under the FTCA, we are required to apply the law of the state in which the alleged tort occurred.”); Lassiter, 556 F.3d at 1054 (listing elements of a malicious prosecution claim under Washington law).

We do not consider the merits of Thuil-lard’s motions to compel discovery because the district court denied the motions without prejudice for failure to comply with procedural requirements, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1); E.D. Wash. L.R. 7.1(b), 37.1(b), and Thuillard did not renew the motions.

Thuillard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.