Muendel

MEMORANDUM

Peter Muendel appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the City of Los Angeles and two individual police officers. This court reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1997). A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Id. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Muendel’s claim that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest him was properly dismissed. Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the cir *702 cumstances known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that a crime was committed. Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1428 (9th Cir.1994). Although Muendel claims he was not violating the terms of the mutual restraining order because he was entitled to pick up his children on that day, the order is far from crystal clear regarding the timing and mechanics of the pickup. The terms of the mutual…