Joseph Robinson v. Kenneth Bryant

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2023
• Docket: 21-16622
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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