Alvarez

MEMORANDUM ***

We consider claims brought by Roy Alvarez (“Alvarez”) and his wife Irene Alvarez against the City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Officer Roland Drouin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law. Although we are sympathetic to the claims, upon de novo review of the record, see Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 287 (9th Cir.1994), we are compelled to apply the controlling law and affirm.

The facts are known to the parties and are not recounted here.

1. False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution and State Tort Claims

The Supreme Court has instructed that qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 actions where a reasonable officer could conclude, even if he is mistaken, that probable cause is present. See Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991). This issue should be resolved early in the litigation because it is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability. See id. Similarly, under California law, civil actions against police officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution can only be maintained if the plaintiff can prove the officer’s actions were without probable cause.…