Brookins

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald R. Brookins appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of highway patrol officers in Brookins’ 42 U. S.C. § 1983 action arising from his detention and arrest for driving with tinted windows. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the grant of summary judgment. Mitchell v. Los Angeles Cmty. College Dist, 861 F.2d 198 , 201 (9th Cir.1988). We affirm.

Because Officer Shaw had probable cause to believe that Brookins’ window tint was unlawful, the district court properly granted summary judgment on his claims that the stop, arrest, and search violated the Fourth Amendment, and on his claims for false arrest and false imprisonment under state law. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) (upholding custodial arrest for traffic violations); George v. City of Long Beach, 973 F.2d 706, 710 (9th Cir.1992).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on his excessive force claims because Brookins refused to cooperate with the officers, did not complain about the handcuffs for 45 to 50 minutes, and suffered only de minimus injury. See White by White v. Pierce…