Mary S. Thuillard v. United States of America

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY S. THUILLARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-36013
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00368-FVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mary S. Thuillard appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her action alleging malicious prosecution under the Federal Tort Claims Act
FILED
JUN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-36013 2
(“FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the malicious
prosecution claim because Thuillard failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the
prosecution was instituted or continued without probable cause or with malice. See
Conrad v. United States, 447 F.3d 760, 767 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In assessing the
United States’ liability under the FTCA, we are required to apply the law of the
state in which the alleged tort occurred.”); Lassiter, 556 F.3d at 1054 (listing
elements of a malicious prosecution claim under Washington law).
We do not consider the merits of Thuillard’s motions to compel discovery
because the district court denied the motions without prejudice for failure to
comply with procedural requirements, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); E.D. Wash. L.
R. 7.1(b), 37.1(b), and Thuillard did not renew the motions.
Thuillard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --