Reid
Reid v. City of Beverly Hills
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Robin Reid appeals the summary judgment entered on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Beverly Hills and various members of the Beverly Hills Police Department for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from his arrest for residential burglary. We affirm.
Reid argues that the district court applied the wrong standard by omitting and misstating facts and drawing improper inferences. We disagree. The court acknowledged the correct standards for summary judgment, and for whether the officers had probable cause. See Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1993).
The crux of Read’s appeal is that the court failed to accept his position that reasonable police officers would have assessed the reliability and trustworthiness of the Blackburns’ accusations differently. While the officers could have done so, the historical facts were not in dispute and a material, triable dispute does not exist concerning the inferences that might reasonably be drawn from facts known to the arresting officers. See, e.g., Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059 , 1066-67 (9th Cir.2006); Peng v. Penghu, 335 F.3d 970, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2003).