David Adams v. County of Los Angeles Charles B. Musgrave Lt. Thomas Ewens Gary E. Vance Dan Strasburg Deborah Strasburg

103 F.3d 137 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Charles B. Musgrave; Lt. Thomas Ewens; Gary E. Vance; Dan Strasburg; Deborah Strasburg, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-56057. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 1996. Decided Nov. 22, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV 93-0268 Kn (Ghkx); David V. Kenyon, District Judge, Presiding. C.D.Cal. REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 David Adams appeals a summary judgment in favor of Defendants Deputy Charles B. Musgrave and the County of Los Angeles in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages he claims were caused by his arrest for falsely reporting a crime. Adams was subsequently acquitted of this charge. The district court held that Deputy Musgrave was entitled to qualified immunity for…