Kanvick

MEMORANDUM ***

Scott Kanvick appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his civil rights by unlawfully arresting and falsely imprisoning him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against defendant City Center Limited Partnership because Kanvick failed to raise a genuine issue as to whether this defendant acted under color of state law. See Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir.2002) (stating that to prove a conspiracy between the police and a private citizen, the plaintiff must show there was an agreement to violate his constitutional rights); Collins v. Womancare, Inc., 878 F.2d 1145, 1155 (9th Cir.1989) (“[MJerely complaining to the police does not convert a private party into a state actor.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kanvick’s unlawful arrest, detention, and search claims because his arrest was supported by probable cause. See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th…