Costco

MEMORANDUM

Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants unlawfully accused him of theft. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because defendants’ complaint to the police and execution of the sworn criminal complaint, without more, did not convert them into state actors. See Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1155 (9th Cir.1989).

Summary judgment was properly granted on the malicious prosecution claim because Harrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the prosecutors’ decisions were influenced by any information misreported or withheld by defendants. See Richer v. Poisson, 137 Or.App. 157 , 903 P.2d 932, 935 (1995).

Summary judgment was properly granted on the false arrest and false imprisonment claims because Harrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material…