Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jamar James EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-16169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Jamar Evans, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Kenneth R. Hedberg, Esquire, Hakeem Ellis & Marengo, Stockton, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, • REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jamar James Evans appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his arrest. We have jurisdiction' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

In opposition to summary judgment, Evans contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his § 1983 action because of California Government Code § 945.3. The district court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider Evans’s action. See Harding v. Galceran, 889 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir.1989) (California Government Code § 945.3 does not prohibit a § 1983 action).

Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.