Blaine Murray v. Charlie Anderson

MEMORANDUM

Blaine Murray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prosecution in Idaho state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Murray’s malicious prosecution claim because Murray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Anderson issued the citation with malice, without probable cause, and for the purpose of denying Murray a specific constitutional right. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 , 1189 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining the elements a plaintiff must show for a malicious prosecution claim to constitute a due process violation under § 1983).

Moreover, Murray points to no authority to support his contention that the district court erred in construing his claim based on Anderson’s alleged false testimony as a claim for malicious prosecution. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 , 327 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 1108 , 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (“The Court ... has not held that the false testimony of…