Redames Rolon v. Los Angeles County

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REDAMES LOPEZ ROLON, No. 08-56971
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-05231-PA-AGR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Redames Lopez Rolon appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that law enforcement officers
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
violated his Fourth Amendment rights by illegally searching his home and
arresting him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rolon’s unlawful
search and arrest claims because Rolon failed to controvert the defendants’
evidence that the search warrant and arrest were supported by probable cause. See
Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing
probable cause standard for searches); Picray v. Sealock, 138 F.3d 767, 770 (9th
Cir. 1998) (holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the Fourth
Amendment if the officers had probable cause to believe the suspect had
committed or was about to commit a crime); see also Cal. Penal Code § 847(b)(1)
(barring liability for false arrest or imprisonment where the officer “had reasonable
cause to believe the arrest was lawful”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rolon’s negligent
infliction of emotional distress claim because Rolon failed to introduce evidence
creating a genuine issue as to whether the defendants acted negligently. See
Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Med. Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal. 3d 583, 588 (1989)
(explaining that the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply
to an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress).
tk/Research 2 08-56971
Rolon’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
tk/Research 3 08-56971