
    Michael WHITMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Ethan Marquez, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-56566.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 11, 2012.
    
    Filed May 16, 2012.
    Edi M.O. Faal, Esquire, Law Offices of Edi M.O. Faal, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michelle B. Ghaltchi, Esquire, Timothy James Krai, Esquire, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and CHEN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward M. Chen, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Whitmore (“Whitmore”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include them here.

There is no triable issue of fact that Deputy Marquez fabricated evidence. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

Additionally, Whitmore’s malicious prosecution claim fails because he has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was prosecuted for attempted murder and for attempted removal of a firearm with malice and without probable cause. Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.2004). Further, considering Whit-more’s criminal “judgment as a whole,” Whitmore did not receive a favorable outcome. Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal.4th 336, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 97, 83 P.3d 497, 501 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Poppell v. City of San Diego, 149 F.3d 951, 963 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that “[a]n acquittal ... reveals very little—if anything—about whether charges were procured with malice”).

Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the foregoing claims is AFFIRMED. 
      
       disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     