Court Opinion

ID: 9380949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:00:53.735716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.572356
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH ROBINSON,                                No.    21-16622

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01189-DMC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KENNETH BRYANT,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                  Dennis M. Cota, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                           Submitted March 14, 2023***

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Joseph Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
      ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085,

1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Bryant

because Robinson failed to overcome the presumption that the prosecutor

exercised independent judgment in determining that probable cause existed when

the prosecutor filed a criminal complaint. See Mills v. City of Covina, 921 F.3d

1161, 1169 (9th Cir. 2019) (describing the elements of a malicious prosecution

claim); Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266 (9th Cir. 1981), overruled on other

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

criminal complaint immunizes investigating officers … from damages suffered

thereafter because 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.”); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1027

(9th Cir. 2008) (evidence to rebut the presumption must be “substantial” and

cannot consist merely of a plaintiff’s own account of events).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     21-16622