Francis Fahy v. Orpheos Tarbox

MEMORANDUM

Francis T. Fahy appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations arising out of his arrest and confinement following a car accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 , 919 (9th Cir.2001). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Fahy’s unlawful and false arrest claims because Fahy failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether, at the time of the arrest, the officers lacked probable cause to believe that Fahy had violated California Vehicle Code § 20002(a). See Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 36 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 , 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979) (validity of arrest does not depend on whether suspect actually committed a crime); Rodis v. City & County of San Francisco, 558 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.2009) (there is probable cause to arrest if officers know of “reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe…