Case Information
*1 Before: PAEZ, BEA, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
In this § 1983 deliberate-fabrication-of-evidence case, Plaintiff-Appellant Lavirrise Bynes appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees Solano County Sherif f’s Detective Charles Olmstead and Solano County. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district *2 court’s decision de novo. Pomares v. Dep’t of Vet. Affs. , 113 F.4th 870, 879 (9th Cir. 2024). We affirm.
To prevail on a deliberate- fabrication claim, the plaintiff must prove that “(1) the defendant official deliberately fabricated evidence and (2) the deliberate fabrication caused the plaintiff’s deprivation of liberty.” Spencer v. Peters , 857 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir. 2017). We do not address Bynes’s allegation that Det. Olmstead’s description of a witness statement in his incident report was a deliberate fabrication because, even if it was, Bynes has not presented evidence establishing causation. See G and G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Liu , 45 F.4th 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 2022) ( Where, as here, the party moving for summary judgment . . . has borne its initial burden to show that the nonmoving party . . . ‘ does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, ’ the nonmoving party then has the burden ‘ to produce evidence to support its claim. ’” (quoting Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos. Inc. , 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 – 03 (9th Cir. 2000))).
“[F]abricated evidence does not give rise to a claim if the plaintiff cannot show the fabrication actually injured her in some way.” Spencer , 857 F.3d at 798 (citation modified). The fabrication must be both (1) the but-for cause and (2) the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Id. While the disputed evidence placed Bynes at the scene of the crime, so did ample other evidence , including Bynes’s own *3 statement. On the record presented, we cannot conclude that there is evidence from which a jury could find that [Bynes’s] injury would not have occurred in the absence of the conduct ” challenged here. Id. ; see also Caldwell v. City & County of San Francisco , 889 F.3d 1105, 1115 (9th Cir. 2018) (“ To establish causation, [a plaintiff] must raise a triable issue that the fabricated evidence was the cause in fact and proximate cause of his injury. ”).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.