Acosta
Acosta v. Hill
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
1. Since the officers had probable cause to believe that Acosta violated San Diego Municipal Code § 59.0103(g) (2000), in their presence, they didn’t violate her Fourth Amendment rights. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001).
2. Acosta didn’t produce sufficient evidence of unlawful intent to survive summary judgement on her retaliation claims, see Mt. Healthy City Sch. Hist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), or her malicious prosecution claims, see Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir .2004).
3. The district court’s clarification of cross-examination questions and refusal to give a “group attack” jury instruction weren’t an abuse of discretion.
4. The city’s alleged failure to train officers adequately and require fitness standards didn’t amount to deliberate indifference. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 , 109 S.Ct. 1197 , 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989).
5. All of Acosta’s claims against Elite Show Services, Inc. and the security guards similarly lack merit.
6. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to…