NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUSTIN FLAKE; LOGAN FLAKE,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. COUNTY OF MARICOPA, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; MARIE TROMBI, in her personal capacity,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16652
D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 01132

- NVW

MEMORANDUM *

AUSTIN FLAKE; LOGAN FLAKE,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v. MARIE TROMBI, in her personal capacity,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 16827
D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 01132

- NVW

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 4, 2020

Phoenix, Arizona

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

FEB 27 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Before: O ’ SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Austin and Logan Flake appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Maricopa County and Deputy Sheriff Marie Trombi on the
Flakes’ malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The y also appeal
from the district court’s denial of leave to amend their complaint

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and w e affirm.
1. R eview ing de novo, and considering the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Flakes , see Yousefian v. City of Glendale , 779 F.3d 1010, 1011 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) , we conclude that the district court correctly entered summary judg ment against the Flakes on their malicious prosecution claim . Assuming, without deciding, that the Flakes created triable issues of fact on the other elements
of the claim, the re is no genuine dispute of fact material to whether Trombi, the investigating officer , caused the Flakes ’ injuries

. See id. (“[W]e may affirm on any ground supported by the record.”).
“It is a well

- settled principle that the ‘ [ f ] iling of a criminal complaint immunizes investigating officers

. . . f rom damages suffered thereafter bec ause it is presumed that the prosecutor filing the complaint exercised independent judgment in determining that probable cause for an accused’s arrest exists at that time. ’ ” Harper v. City of Los Angeles , 533 F.3d 1010, 102 7 (9th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Smiddy v. Varney , 665 F.2d 261, 266 (9th Cir. 1981), overruled3

on other grounds by Beck v. City of Upland , 527 F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir. 2008) )

. Even assuming that Trombi made misrepresentations about the evidence in pursuing charges against the Flak es , t he record shows that the prosecutor’s
decision to present the case to the grand jury was “the result of [her] independent professional judgment based upon a thorough review of the evidence

. ” McSherry v. City of Long Beach , 584 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2009). T he prosecutor received
the entire case file from Trombi , including the evidence that Trombi had allegedly misrepresented

. The prosecutor testified that she thoroughly reviewed the
evidence , request ed additional information from law enforcement , personally
interviewed the expert witnesses , consulted with the County Attorney and her other supervisors, and independently determined that there was probable cause to
prosecute

. See id. at 1137

– 38

. T he “ prosecutor ’s independent judgment ” thereby
severed “ the chain of causation between the unconstitutional actions ” allegedly committed by Trombi and the injuries suffered by the Flakes. Beck , 527 F.3d at
8 6 2

. In an effort to establish causation , t he Flakes c ontend that Trombi ’s misrepresentations and omissions influenced the prosecutor’s decision

. See Beck , 527 F.3d at 862

– 63

. T he Flakes suppose that the prosecutor ’s contrary testimony
was moti vated by a desire to “protect her professional reputation

. ” But s uch

“ s peculation is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Stephens v.4

Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 935 F.3d 852, 856 (9th Cir. 2019)

. T he Flakes have not
identified evidence that undermine s the prosecutor’s testimony that she would have prosecuted the Flakes regardless of Trombi’s representations

. Because there is no genuine issue of fact material to whether Trombi caused the Flakes to suffer harm , summary judgment in favor of Trombi was appropriate

. 2. Even if the Flakes had established a triable claim against Trombi, the County could not be held liable under section 1983 because the complaint does not allege facts supporting the Flakes’ theory that an “official with final policy

- making authority ratifie d [Trombi’s] unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for
it

. ” Gillette v. Delmore , 979 F.2d 1342, 1346

– 47 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)

. 3. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Texaco , Inc. v. Ponsoldt , 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) , we conclude that t he district court did not err in denying
the Flakes’ motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. As the court explained, the Flakes had already been “ allowed three prior amendments and multiple opportunities to articulate” their theory of the case. The court also noted

t hat both the Flakes’ delay and the resulting prejudice to the defendants w ere
“extreme

. ” There was no abuse of discretion. See id. at 798

– 99.
AFFIRMED

.