Ross

Ross v. City of Ontario

Good Law
66 F. App'x 93
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 7, 2003No. 02-55305California916 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Rhonda Ross (“Ross”) appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the defendants with regard to (1) her false arrest claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law and (2) her *95 excessive force claims brought under § 1983. We affirm.

I. Probable Cause

“A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.” Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2001). The showing of probable cause is therefore a defense to Ross’s false arrest claim under § 1983, as well as her common law claim for false arrest and false imprisonment under California law. See CaLPenal Code, § 836(a); Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 , 920 (9th Cir.2001). “Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officers (or within the knowledge of the other officers at the scene), a prudent person would believe the suspect had committed a crime.” Dubner, 266 F.3d at 966 (citation omitted).

The record establishes that a prudent person would believe, under the totality of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.