Case Name: Blaine MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charlie ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-13
Citations: 453 F. App'x 756
Docket Number: No. 10-35217
Parties: Blaine MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charlie ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 756–756

Head Matter:
Blaine MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charlie ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-35217.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 13, 2011.
Blaine Murray, Idaho Falls, ID, pro se.
Lawrence G. Allen, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGID-Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Blaine Murray appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prosecution in Idaho state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Murray's malicious prosecution claim because Murray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Anderson issued the citation with malice, without probable cause, and for the purpose of denying Murray a specific constitutional right. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining the elements a plaintiff must show for a malicious prosecution claim to constitute a due process violation under § 1983).
Moreover, Murray points to no authority to support his contention that the district court erred in construing his claim based on Anderson's alleged false testimony as a claim for malicious prosecution. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 327 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) ("The Court . has not held that the false testimony of a police officer in itself violates constitutional rights.").
Murray's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Anderson's motion for leave to include in the excerpts of record an audio file and an electronic version of an oversized exhibit is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.