Michael Sahakian v. Orloff ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SAHAKIAN, No. 20-55702
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04204-JFW-DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ORLOFF, Officer; COLE, Officer;
JEFFREY DAVIS, Detective; RICHARD
PESTI,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
CITY OF GLENDALE; CITY OF
GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
DOES, 1 through 25, official capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Michael Sahakian appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and judicial deception in
connection with two separate arrests. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir.
2019). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Orloff
and Cole because Sahakian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether these defendants’ use of force was unreasonable in light of the facts and
circumstances. See id. (setting forth objective reasonableness standard for
excessive force determinations and explaining that “[o]nly information known to
the officer at the time the conduct occurred is relevant”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Davis
because Sahakian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Davis deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions in requesting a
warrant for violation of a court order. See Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931, 937 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“To maintain a false arrest claim for judicial deception, a plaintiff must
show that the officer who applied for the arrest warrant deliberately or recklessly
made false statements or omissions that were material to the finding of probable
cause.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ewing v. City of Stockton,
588 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that a claim of judicial deception
2 20-55702
may not be based on omissions or misstatements resulting from negligence, good
faith mistakes, or an officer’s erroneous assumptions about the evidence he has
received).
Sahakian’s motion for leave to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry
No. 40) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-55702