James Robinson v. Washington County , 424 F. App'x 658 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON, No. 09-35254
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:06-cv-01705-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
WASHINGTON COUNTY, State of
Oregon; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
James William Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force in the course of a
detention arising out of a traffic stop, and state law claims of defamation. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Luchtel v. Hagemann,
623 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Officers Crino
and Blalack based on qualified immunity because Robinson failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers used excessive force in
subduing and handcuffing him, and “a reasonable officer could have thought that
the force used was needed.” Id. at 980-83 (granting summary judgment for
officers where the plaintiff had actively resisted arrest and the “officers applied the
least amount of force necessary to subdue [the plaintiff] by pinning her to the
ground and handcuffing her”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the City of
Beaverton and Washington County because Robinson failed to demonstrate any
constitutional violation and failed to allege that any policy, practice, or custom by
the municipalities caused the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. See
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for all defendants on
the state law defamation claims because Robinson did not allege that defendants
made any false or defamatory statements. See Walleri v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of
Seattle, 83 F.3d 1575, 1583 (9th Cir. 1996).
2 09-35254
Robinson’s remaining contentions, including those regarding additional
Beaverton police officers who were not involved in the detention, are
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-35254