Case ID: f-appx_700/html/0769-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bobby Lee MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy Louis TURNER, LVMPD Officer Badge No. 13518; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16878
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed November 9, 2017
    Bobby Lee Montgomery, Pro Se
    Craig R. Anderson, Esquire, Director, Micah S. Echols, Esquire, Attorney, Adele V. Karoum, Esquire, Attorney, Marquis Aurbaeh Coffing, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bobby Lee Montgomery appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 287-88 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because the record shows that Montgomery had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of probable cause in his prior state criminal action, and, thus, he is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue in this action. See id. at 288-90 (explaining that under Nevada law, a probable cause determination at a preliminary hearing provides a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue sufficient to support collateral estoppel in a subsequent § 1983 action).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.