Ayala

MEMORANDUM *

The plaintiffs challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The record reflects that the prosecuting attor *29 ney acted independently in bringing the action complained of. Nor have the plaintiffs alleged facts to show that a policy or custom caused the plaintiffs’ alleged constitutional deprivation. We affirm.

I

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants for the reasons that (1) the defendants did not initiate criminal proceedings; (2) the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants acted with malice; (3) collateral estoppel prevented the plaintiffs from relitigating the issue of probable cause; and (4) the plaintiffs failed to show a favorable termination. Even if the court erred with respect to items (3) and (4), there is no triable issue of fact with respect to the initiation of criminal proceedings and the issue of malice.

“Ordinarily, the decision to file a criminal complaint is presumed to result from an independent determination on the part of the prosecutor, and thus, precludes liability for those who participated in the investigation or filed a report that resulted in the initiation of proceedings.”…