Clark Willes v. Linn County, a municipality;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARK WILLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LINN COUNTY, a municipality; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35019
D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06409-MC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 8, 2016
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Before: GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Clark Willes appeals from the district court grant of summary judgment in
favor of defendants on Willes’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest,
malicious prosecution, and retaliation. We review de novo, Smith v. Almada, 640
F.3d 931, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Willes’s false
arrest claim. Even if the so-called false statements by the defendants were set
aside, the district court correctly noted that independent witnesses provided
sufficient evidence of probable cause.1
The determination of probable cause also defeats Willes’s malicious
prosecution and retaliation claims. See Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 F.3d
1049, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (probable cause is an absolute defense to malicious
prosecution); Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1231-32 (9th Cir.
2006) (stating that a plaintiff must ultimately prove that the defendant’s desire to
cause a chilling effect was a but-for cause of defendant’s action). The arrest
warrant here was issued pursuant to the grand jury’s determination of probable
cause. Willes provides no evidence of a “but-for” retaliatory motive to cause a
chilling effect upon his First Amendment rights.
Willes’s remaining claim for municipal liability is predicated on his claim
that the individual defendants violated his constitutional rights. Because no
1 We need not decide whether the holding in Rehberg v. Paulk, __ U.S. __,
132 S. Ct. 1497, 1506-07 (2012) impacts our holding in Harris v. Roderick, 126
F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997), because, even under the standards articulated in Harris,
Willes fails to raise a triable issue as to the existence of a conspiracy or level of
misconduct sufficient to taint the grand jury’s finding of probable cause.
14-35019 2

-- 2 of 3 --

constitutional violations occurred, Willes’s municipal liability claim fails. See
Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
14-35019 3

-- 3 of 3 --