Epifania Nicolas v. City of Riverside ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EPIFANIA NICOLAS, No. 11-55253
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-CV-01737-DMG-
PJW
v.
CITY OF RIVERSIDE, California; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,
Senior District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Alaska, sitting by designation.
Epifania Nicolas appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for
Defendant-Appellees City of Riverside, California, Jim Brandt, Michael Medici,
and Russ Leach (collectively, “the City”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the City. Even if
Nicolas’s claim for violations of her Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 were not barred by collateral estoppel, the uncontroverted facts establish that
there was probable cause to arrest Nicolas. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 324 (1986). Though Nicolas claimed to dispute several of the City’s facts in
her opposition to the motion for summary judgment, neither her asserted facts nor
any of the evidence cited controverted the facts on which the district court relied.
From these undisputed facts, the district court found the evidence revealed Nicolas
had potential motives to murder Shirazi and had close connections to the men
ultimately convicted of Shirazi’s murder. This, in combination with her actions at
the time of and following the murder, established much more than mere suspicion
or “mere propinquity.” United States v. Hillison, 733 F.2d 692, 697–98 (9th Cir.
1984); Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979). As this evidence was sufficient
under the totality of the circumstances to “lead a [person] of ordinary care and
prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion
2
that [Nicolas was] guilty of a crime,” Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d
463, 471 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted), the district
court did not err in finding the City met its burden of producing evidence to show
probable cause existed to arrest Nicolas, see Dubner v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 266
F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3