Brown v. Darcy, 012114 FED9, 11-17749

Docket Nº:11-17749
Party Name:JEROME BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARCY, Detective, #4225; J. BECK, Officer, #4233/SB 35; BROWN, Officer; WILLIAMS, Officer; JERRY KELLER; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN SHERIFF POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: WALLACE and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Case Date:January 21, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JEROME BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DARCY, Detective, #4225; J. BECK, Officer, #4233/SB 35; BROWN, Officer; WILLIAMS, Officer; JERRY KELLER; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN SHERIFF POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-17749

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 21, 2014

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted January 14, 2014 [**] San Francisco, California.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Lloyd D. George, No. 2:09-cv-00956-LDG-RJJ Senior District Judge, Presiding.

Before: WALLACE and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge. [***]

MEMORANDUM[*]

Jerome Brown appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the former sheriff, and four individual officers (collectively, "defendants"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

"We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Viewing the evidence and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact remain and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law." Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

Brown asserts four claims for relief: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983–False Arrest; (2) § 1983–Custom and Policy; (3) Malicious Prosecution under state law; and (4) Punitive Damages. All four claims hinge on whether there was probable cause to arrest and prosecute Brown for robbery. See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) ("To prevail on his § 1983 claim for false arrest . . ., [plaintiff] would have to demonstrate that there was no probable cause to arrest him."); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that there must be an underlying deprivation of a constitutional right to support municipal liability); LaMantia v. Redisi, 38 P.3d 877, 879 (Nev. 2002) ("[T]he elements of a malicious prosecution claim are: (1) want of probable cause to initiate the prior criminal proceeding; (2) malice; (3) termination of the prior criminal proceedings; and (4) damage." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

"Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP