Hroscikoski

*96 MEMORANDUM *

Hroscikoski appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution and state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligent employment, and civil rights violations. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Diruzza v. County of Tehama, 323 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.2003). The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background of this ease, so we recount it only as necessary to our discussion.

Defendants Thomas Rabine and Officer Cohen were not in privity with the District Attorney during Hroseikoski’s prosecution for trespassing, and thus were not estopped from relitigating the issue of probable cause. Davis v. Eide, 439 F.2d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir.1971). The district court properly granted summary judgment to Officer Cohen and Rabine because both had probable cause to believe that Hroscikoski was wrongfully on St. James property. See Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 335 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir.2003) (“Under California law, an officer has probable cause for a warrantless arrest ‘if the facts known…