James Wright, Jr. v. E. Hendrichsen ( 2022 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 8 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES O. WRIGHT, Jr., No. 19-35676
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05961-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
E. M. HENDRICHSEN, #3603; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 6, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
James Wright appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor
of two defendant police officers in his 28 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging
malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review the summary judgment de novo, Newman v. County of Orange, 457 F.3d
991, 993 (9th Cir. 2006), and affirm.
Summary judgment was proper for the defendants on Wright’s malicious
prosecution claim because Wright failed to overcome the presumption that the
prosecutor exercised independent judgment in determining that probable cause
existed. “To rebut the presumption of independent judgment and to survive
summary judgment on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must provide more
than an account of the incident in question that conflicts with the account of the
officers involved.” Id. at 995. Thus, Wright’s own account of the incident,
without more, does not create a genuine issue of material fact.
AFFIRMED.
2