1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 11 ASHKAUN RAFIGH, Case No. 2:23-cv-10524-HDV (SK)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 CITY OF PASO ROBLES POLICE

JUDGE

DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the 19 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 21 those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 The Report recommends the grant of Defendants’ motion for summary 23 judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff’s dispute of the Report (ECF No. 52) does not 24 warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 25 Plaintiff objects that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 26 Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful 27 arrest for domestic violence. (ECF No. 52 at 2.) Plaintiff specifically objects that 28 probable cause was absent because Officer Valdez stated there were no visual 1 injuries on the alleged victim. (Id.) As the Report found, however, Plaintiff does not and cannot genuinely dispute what the officers were told by the victim. (ECF 2 No. 51 at 5.) The victim told the officers that Plaintiff had choked her, was visibly 3 upset, maintained a consistent story even after being questioned a second time, and 4 specified that she wanted to press criminal charges. (Id.) No rational trier of fact 5 could find that police lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. (Id. at 6.) 6 Plaintiff objects that corroboration of the alleged victim’s account, which 7 Plaintiff denied at the scene, was required for probable cause. (ECF No. 52 at 2-4.) 8 As the Report found, however, “[u]nder appropriate circumstances, an officer may 9 rely solely on a victim’s credible statement in determining probable cause exists to 10 believe a crime has been committed.” (ECF No. 51 at 5 (quoting Adams v. Kraft, 11 828 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2011)). Plaintiff does not challenge 12 evidence showing that the alleged victim, when talking to the arresting officer, was 13 visibly upset and gave consistent and detailed accounts of the alleged choking 14 incident. (ECF No. 43-1 at 9-10.) Thus, the alleged victim provided “facts 15 sufficiently detailed to cause a reasonable person to believe a crime had been 16 committed and the named suspect was the perpetrator.” Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 17 335 F.3d 970, 978 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 18 1444 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 Plaintiff objects that the City of Paso Robles is liable under Monell v. Dep’t 20 of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). (ECF No. 52 at 5.) As the Report found, 21 however, Plaintiff’s inability to prove an underlying violation of federal law based 22 on the alleged unlawful arrest means there can be no municipal liability under 23 Monell. (ECF No. 51 at 7.) And as the Report further found, even if Plaintiff could 24 establish such an underlying violation, he still has not identified any policies, 25 practices, or customs that were the moving force behind the alleged unlawful arrest. 26 (Id.) 27 \\ 28 1 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation 1s accepted and 2 || adopted; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and 3 || (3) Judgment will be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 4 _ 5 || DATED: 5/1/2025 J ? ye (oe 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28