In Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008), the Court held that in any constitutional tort case . . . in which a prosecutor has instigated a prosecution, it is necessary, if not sufficient, that a plaintiff seeking to sue non-prosecutorial officials alleged to be responsible postcomplaint for the arrest or prosecution show the absence of probable cause. Id. at 865 (citing Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1981), and Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006)). Relying on the Supreme Courts decision in Hartman, we said a prosecutors independent judgment may break the chain of causation between the unconstitutional actions of other officials and the harm suffered by a constitutional tort plaintiff. Beck, 527 F.3d at 862. The Court added that put in traditional tort terms, the prosecutors independent decision can be a superseding or intervening cause of a constitutional tort plaintiff s injury, precluding suit against the officials who made an arrest or procured a prosecution. Id. In Beck, we concluded on the record (1) that Beck was arrested without probable cause, and (2) that the officers had not met their burden to show that the prosecutors charging decisions acted as an intervening cause, thus shielding them from liability. Beck, 527 F.3d at 870.