Joseph Robinson v. Kenneth Bryant ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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