N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAB R IL C ALDW E LL-PARKER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. SURPR ISE POLIC E DEPAR TM ENT, gove rnm e nt e ntity ; TER

RI C ALAB RESEKOPR ONIC A, Sgt., supe rvise d unit; TR INITEE SAPP, c ustom e r se rvic e re pre se ntative ; T. M
. KNIGHT, offic e r, polic e offic ia l; J. W . ANDER SON, offic e r, polic e offic ia l,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-17010 D.C . No. 2:21-c v-01088-DW L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dom inic La

nz a , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 12, 2024 **
B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED
APR 12 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff Ja bril C a ldwe ll-Pa

rke r a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the de fe nda

nts in his c ivil rights ac t ion a rising out of his a rre st by the de fe nda

nts. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Hughe s v . Rodrigue

z , 31 F.4th 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2022), a nd
a ffirm
. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r on the Fifth Am e ndm e nt due proc e s s c la im be c a use the de fe nda

nts a re loc a l offic ia ls. Se e C

astillo v . Mc

Fadde n , 399 F.3d 993, 1002 n.5 (9th C ir. 2005) (e xpla ining tha t the Fifth Am e ndm e nt Due Proc e ss C la use a pplie s to fe d e ra l offic ia ls). The distric t c ourt prope rly he ld tha t pla intiff c o uld not sta

te an Eighth Am e ndm e nt c la im

be c a use he wa s not a

c onvic te d prisone r at the tim e of his a rre st. Se e Hughe

s , 31 F.4th a

t 1220-21 (holding tha

t the Fourth Am e ndm e nt sta n da rd
a pplie s to fre e c itiz e ns, while the Eighth Am e ndm e nt sta nda rd a pplie s to c onvic te d prisone rs, whe t

he r those prisone rs a

re inc arc e rat e d or ha

ve e sc a pe d). Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r on the Fourth Am e ndm e nt unla wful a rre st
c la im be c a use the undispute d fa c ts e sta blishe d tha

t the de fe nda

nts ha d proba

ble
c a use to a rre s t pla intiff. Unde r the tota lity of the c i rc um sta

nc e s known to the de fe nda nts, a n obje c tive ly

re a sona ble offic e r would ha

ve be lie v e d tha

t pla i ntiff ha d
c om m itte d the c rim e of disturbing the pe a c e by y e lling a t the vic tim

an d spra y ing
2he r with thewate r hose in the pre se nc e of his fa m ily and ne ighbors. Se eDist. of C olumbia v . W

e sby , 583 U.S. 48, 56-57 (2018) (se tting forth the re quire m e nts for proba b le c a use ); A.R .S. § 13-2904(A)(1) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of thec rim e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on theFourth Am e ndm e nt e xc e ssive forc e c la im be c a use pla intiff c annot e s ta

blish tha t his
c onstitutiona

l rights we re viola

te d. Unde r the tota lity

of the c i rc um sta

nc e s, pa rtic u la rly the diffic ulty

tha t the offic e rs ha d

ha ndc uffing pla intiff a

nd ge tting him into thepatrol ve hic le , a

re a s ona ble offic e r c ould ha

v e be lie v e d tha

t a m inim a l
am ount of forc e an d

an im plie d thre at of forc e we re ne c e ssa ry to ge t pla i ntiff into the v e hic l e and onto theba c k se at of tha t ve hic le
. Se eN

e lson v . C ity of Dav is , 685 F.3d 867, 881 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t “ [e ] ve n pa ssive re sista

nc e m ay support theuse of som e de gre e of gove rnm e nta l forc e if ne c e ssa ry to a tta in
c om plia nc e ” ). W e de c line to c onside r c la im s wa ive d in theope ning brie f. M artinezSe rrano v . I.N

.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). Nor do we c onside r the distric t c o urt’ s a l te rnative ruling tha t the Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im s a re ba rre d by He c k v . Humphre

y , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The pe nding m otions (Dkt. Entry Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24) a

re de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.
3