N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT EDWARD RE ZEK, Plaintiff-Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF TUSTIN, e t al . , De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55320 D.C . No. 8:11-c v-01601-DOC R NB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt C e ntra l Distric t of C a l ifornia David O. C arte r, Distric t Judge Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, B EA, a n d IKUTA C i rc uit Judge s. Edwa rd R e z e k a

p pe a l s from

two distric t c ourt orde rs: one dism i ssing his third a m e nde d c o m

pla i nt (TAC ) a ga inst IPC C orporation a nd priva te se c urity 

# FIL ED MAR 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1gua

rds Jose R e y e s and Hirine o Iba rra (IPC De fe nda

nts), without le ave to a

m e nd; and a nothe r granting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Tustin polic e offic e rs B rian C hupp a nd M ark Turne r (Tustin De fe nda nts). R e z e k

a lle ge s tha

t whilein a pe de stria n c rosswa l k, he wa s a lm ost hit by a priva te se c urity

ve hic l e drive n by

Jose R e y e s. R e z e k “ sla

ppe d” the ve hic le and “ gav e R e y e s a le c ture .” Late r, R e z e k wa s arre ste d by

Offic e rs C hupp a

nd Turne r for vanda liz ing these c urity ve hic le and for re sisting a

rre s t. R e z e k a l l e ge s tha

t the polic e offic e rs use d e xc e ssive forc e , tha t he did not re sist a

rre s t, a nd tha t the de fe nda

nts c onspire d to viola

te his rights. R

e z e k brought va

rious tort c la im s a ga inst de fe nda nts ba se d upon the se a lle gations. In a n inte rve ning c rim ina l t

ria l, R e z e k wa s c onvic te d of va nda lism , but a c quitte d of re sisting a

rre s t. The distric t c ourt dismisse d a ll c l a im s a ga inst the IPC De fe nda nts for fa ilure to sta te a c l a im for re l ie f, ba se d upon thesta n da rd se t forth in Be ll Atlantic

C orp. v . Tw o mbly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007), a nd Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Subse que ntly , the distric t

c o urt issue d a

n orde r whic h gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of the Tustin De fe nda nts a s to R e z e k’ s m a l ic ious prose c ution c la im a ga inst the m

unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 56(f). R e ly ing on StaffPro, Inc . v . Elite

Show Se rv s., Inc . , 136 C a l. App. 4th 1392, 1402–03 (2006), the distric t c ourt found tha

t R e z e k fa ile d a s a

m atte r of la

w to de m onstra

t e the e sse ntia l 2e le m e nt of fa vora ble te rm i nation be c a

use he c o uld not prove a

favora ble te rm ination of the e n tire unde rly ing a c tion due to his c onvic tion for va nda lism . The only c la i m s R e z e k atte m p t s to re vive through his a ppe a l a re his m a lic i ous prose c ution c la im s a ga i n st a ll de fe nda nts, a nd his § 1983 c o nspira c y

and inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss c la i m s a ga inst theIPC De fe nda nts. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re vie w de novo the distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of R e z e k’ s TAC a ga i nst theIPC De fe nda nts unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) for fa i lure to sta t e a c la im . Gant v . C

nty . of L.A. , 772 F.3d 608, 614 (9th C ir. 2014). Likewise , we re vie w de novo the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt for the Tustin De fe nda nts a s to R e z e k’ s § 1983 m a lic i ous prose c ution c la im . Oluw a v . Gome z , 133 F.3d 1237, 1238 (9th C ir. 1998). W e “ c an a ffirm the distric t c o urt on a

ny ba sis supporte d by

the re c o rd.” W

ood v . C ity of San Die

go , 678 F.3d 1075, 1086 (9th C ir. 2012). 1 R e z e k a lle ge s tha

t the Tustin De fe nda

nts fa lse ly c la im e d in the ir polic e re ports tha

t R e z e k ha d re siste d a

rre st, a nd tha t, a s a re sult, R e z e k wa s fa lse ly prose c ute d for re sisting a rre st. Suc h c la im s a

re c ogniz a

b le unde r § 1983. Se e

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd proc e d ura l history , we re sta te the m he re only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. 3Bre tz v . K

e lman , 773 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th C ir. 1985) (e n ba nc ); Galbraith v. C

nty . of Santa C

lara , 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th C ir. 2002). Howe v e r, the e le m e nts of R e z e k’ s m a lic ious prose c ution c la im s a re c ontrolle d by

C a lifornia

sta te la w. Ushe r v . C

ity of L.A. , 828 F.2d 556, 562 (9th C ir. 1987). Unde r C a lifornia la w, “ [t] o e sta

b lish a c a u se of a c tion for . . . m a lic ious prose c ution . . . , a pla intiff m

ust ple a d and prove tha

t the prior a c tion (1) wa s c om m e nc e d by

or at the dire c tion of thede fe nda nt a nd wa s pursue d to a

le ga l te rm ination in his, pla

intiff’ s, favor; (2) wa s brought without proba b le c a use ; a nd (3) wa s initia

te d with m a lic e .” C

row le y v . K atle man , 8 C a l. 4th 666, 676 (1994), as modified

(Nov. 30, 1994) (c iting Be rte ro v . N at’l Ge n. C

orp ., 13 C a l. 3d 43, 50 (1974)) (c ita

tions in origina

l om itte d). Whe n

ana ly z ing thefavora

ble te rm i nation e le m e nt, C a lifornia

c o urts looks to “

t he judgm e nt a s a

whole . ” StaffPro, Inc . , 136 C a l. App. 4th a

t 1403 (quoting C

row le y , 8 C a l. 4th a

t 685). B e c a

use R e z e k wa s c onvic te d of va

nda lism in the sa m e a c tion in whic h he wa s a c q uitte d of re s isting arre st, he c annot de m onstra t e tha t he wa s suc c e ssful in the e ntire c rim ina l a c tion. R e z e k’ s m a lic ious prose c ution c la i m s the re fore fa il a s a m atte r of la

w . B e c a use R e z e k c annot sta

te an unde rly ing c onstitutiona l tort c la im , the distric t c o urt did not err in dismissing his § 1983 c onspira c y c la im . Se e Lac e

y v . Maric opa C

nty . , 693 F.3d 896, 935 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ) (“ C onspira c y

is not 4itse lf a

c onstitutiona

l tort unde r § 1983,” and “ the re m u st a lwa y s be an unde rly ing c onstitutiona

l viola t ion.” ). B e c a use R e z e k’ s inte ntiona l inflic t ion of e m o tiona l distre ss c la im arise s out of c om m unic ations m a de to the Tustin Polic e De pa rtm e nt for the purpose of inve stiga ting a lle ge d c rim ina l a c tivity , it is ba rre d a s a m atte r of la

w. C a lifornia C ivil C ode § 47(b) provide s a n a bsoluteprivile ge to c o m

m unic ations m a de to la

w e nforc e m e nt. H

unsuc k e r v . Sunny v aleHilton Inn , 23 C a l. App. 4th 1498, 1502–03 (1994) (“ [I] n Silbe rg v . Ande rson [50 C a l. 3d 205, 215–16 (1990), as modified (M a r. 12, 1990)] , the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt m a de it c l e ar that the privile ge of se c t ion 47 a

pplie s to ba

r a ll tort a c tions, e xc e pt for m a lic ious prose c ution.” ). This privile ge furthe rs the polic y of “ a ssur[ing] utm ost fre e dom of c om m un ic at ion be twe e n c itiz e ns a

nd public a

uthoritie s whose re sponsibility it is to inve stiga te and re m e dy wrongdoing.” Id . at 1503. Re z e k a l so fa ile d to ple a d a de quate e m otiona l distre s s. Se e Hughe

s v . Pair , 46 C a l. 4th 1035, 1051 (2009). The distric t c ourt, the re fore , c orre c t ly

dism isse d R e z e k’ s inte ntiona l inflic t ion of e m otiona l distre ss c la im . The distric t c ourt’ s orde rs a re AFFIRM E D.

5