Andrew Hamer v. City of Eureka

Good Law
669 F. App'x 926
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 27, 201614-16700; 14-16705California596 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Defendants, City of Eureka, County of Humboldt, and officials in their public and individual capacities, appeal from the district court’s denial of summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review de novo a denial of summary judgment. See Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 724 F.3d 1159, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

We reverse the district court and grant summary judgment to Sergeant Nova in both his individual and official capacity. Because Plaintiff was jaywalking in violation of California Vehicle Code section 21955, Sergeant Nova had probable cause to order an arrest. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001); Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 471-72 (9th Cir. 2007).

We reverse the district court and grant summary judgment tó Police Chief Harp-ham in his individual capacity. Defendant Harpham’s only direct involvement with Plaintiff was Harpham’s failed attempt to detain Plaintiff after Sergeant Nova ordered Plaintiffs arrest. Because he never made contact with Plaintiff, he was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter…

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.