Sean Barnett v. Sal Martinez

MEMORANDUM

Sean Barnett appeals the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Barnett alleges that officers Gebb, Anderson, and Martinez of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control arrested him without probable cause during the course of an investigation for licensing violations at his place of business. Barnett was arrested for possessing a concealed firearm in violation of California Penal Code section 25400(a)(2), but the district attorney declined to charge him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Szajer v. City of L.A., 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). “[Rjeview is governed by the same standard used by the trial court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).” Adcock v. Chrysler Corp., 166 F.3d 1290, 1292 (9th Cir.1999). “This Court must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” Szajer, 632 F.3d at 610 (internal quotation and citation omitted). “When the underlying…