Hickman

MEMORANDUM

Robert Garber appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging various constitutional violations in connection with his arrest and detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We re-, view de novo a district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on Garber’s claim for false arrest because Garber failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him. See Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470-71 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining that a war-rantless arrest violates the Fourth Amendment if the arresting officer does not have probable cause to believe that person to be arrested has committed a felony, and describing the probable cause standard); compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 with Fed. R.Civ.P. 8 (describing different burdens for answers to complaints and motions for summary judgment).

We do not consider the district court’s summary judgment on Garber’s remaining claims. See…