Case ID: f-appx_412/html/0937-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J.R. VERDUGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric MANKER, Deputy Sheriff for the County of San Bernardino; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-56219.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
    J.R. Verdugo, San Bernardano, CA, pro se.
    Teresa M. McGowan, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel, San Bernardino, CA, Dennis E. Wagner, Wagner & Pelayes, LLP, Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

J.R. Verdugo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from a citation for misdemeanor battery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the false arrest claim because the complaint and the attachments thereto show that defendant Manker had probable cause to issue a citation to Verdugo. See John v. City of El Monte, 515 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir.2008) (“Probable cause is an objective standard and the officer’s subjective intention in exercising his discretion to arrest is immaterial in judging whether his actions were reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. The determination whether there was probable cause is based upon the information the officer had at the time of making the arrest.” (internal citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed the equal protection and supervisory liability claims for failure to plead the necessary elements. See Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194-95 (Equal Protection Clause); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (supervisory liability).

Verdugo’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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