Paul Steven Groover, Plaintiff-appellant, v. San Diego County Sheriff's Department; City of San Diegopolice Department; Drug Enforcement Administration; Sandiego County District Attorney Office; Vincentkrowlikowski; Wesley R. Ashcraft; Charles Edward Gouge;james Clem; Does 1 Through 10, Defendants-appellees, 129 F.3d 125 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Paul Steven Groover appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of Westlaw Only summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Groover contends that the district court erred by (1) granting summary judgment for defendants on his claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, and defamation in violation of the Constitution, and (2) denying his motion for summary judgment.¹ 

To establish a constitutional claim of malicious prosecution, Groover must present evidence that defendants prosecuted him with the purpose of denying him equal protection or another constitutional right and without probable cause. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 1995); Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 1985). A conspiracy between prosecutors and police to use false testimony to cause another's imprisonment may support a claim of malicious prosecution. See Bretz, 773 F.2d at 1027, 1130; see also Johnson v. Barker, 799 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th Cir. 1986).² 

Groover contends that defendants conspired to use false testimony and maliciously prosecute him for attempting to kill defendant Gouge with his automobile to justify the shooting of Groover by defendant Krolikowski. Groover submitted no evidence that defendants deprived him of equal protection. Krolikowski's and Gouge's affidavits state that Groover's car was heading for Gouge when Krolikowski fired at Groover. Groover submits no sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that his car was not headed toward Gouge. Thus, in light of the circumstances, Krolikowski was justified in firing at Groover and defendants had probable cause to bring charges against Groover. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendants. See Freeman, 68 F.3d at 1189.

Groover also failed to submit evidence to create a genuine issue regarding his claims of false arrest, false imprisonment and defamation. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendants on these claims. See Barnett, 31 F.3d at 815.³ 

Finally, Groover did not establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact when he moved for summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying summary judgment for Groover. See id.

AFFIRMED.