Mark T. Murray v. Kraig Newman;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK T. MURRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KRAIG NEWMAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35702
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05215-RBL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mark T. Murray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of defendant Kraig Newman in Murray’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EN/Research 08-35702 2
de novo summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Case v. Kitsap
County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 249 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Newman had qualified immunity
from Murray’s claim of malicious prosecution because the record indicates that
there was probable cause to issue a search warrant and arrest Murray. See Mills v.
Graves, 930 F.2d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that “[qualified] immunity will
be lost only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause
as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --