Michael Brainerd v. County of Lake

Good Law
357 F. App'x 88
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 24, 200908-17024California1,372 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Michael Brainerd appeals the district court’s granting summary judgment for defendants — County of Lake and Lake County Sheriffs Office (“Municipal Defendants”), and Deputies Matthew Wristen and Emil Devincenzi (collectively, “Defendants”), on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging unlawful arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, failure to provide a timely and adequate probable cause hearing, failure to provide adequate medical treatment, and illegal incarceration.

The facts and circumstances of this case are well known to the parties and are fairly and accurately set out by the district court at Brainerd v. County of Lake, 2008 WL 3289266 , at *1-*4, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59681 , at *4-*13 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 6, 2008). Brainerd now contends that the district court erred because there are material fact questions on the issues of whether: (1) the officers had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant; (2) the officers lawfully entered his room; (3) his probable cause determination was timely and adequate; (4) Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; (5) he was unlawfully detained for a short time after his official release; and (6) the Municipal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.