Reihley v. Slocum

76 F.3d 388 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. John Patton REIHLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robin SLOCUM; Darryl Wright; Peter Ronstadt; Clarence Dupnik; Tucson Police Department; Drug Enforcement Agency; City of Tucson; Pima County; and Pima County Sheriff Department, Defendants, and Phil Gray; Tom McNally; John Dickinson, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16886. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 9, 1996. * Decided Jan. 17, 1996. Before: SNEED, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 John Patton Reihley, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages for an improper arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. 3 We review the district court's conclusion regarding defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity de novo. Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 835…