NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY A. ORAM, Jr., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

THE CITY OF DILLON; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35038 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00047-BMM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Gary A. Oram, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims in 

connection with his arrest for assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864, 870 (9th 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 27 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35038 

Cir. 2011). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Oram’s unlawful 

arrest claim because Oram failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether Haggard and Alvarez arrested him without probable cause. See United 

States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (probable cause for a 

warrantless arrest exists “when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy 

information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an 

offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested”); see also

Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The mere 

existence of some evidence that could suggest self-defense does not negate 

probable cause.”). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Oram’s excessive 

force claim because Oram failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether Haggard and Alvarez used an unreasonable amount of force against him. 

See Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 

2010) (explaining framework for analyzing an excessive force claim). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Oram’s equal 

protection claim because Haggard and Alvarez were entitled to qualified immunity 

under the circumstances. See Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) 

(discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if 
3 18-35038 

“every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates 

that right” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Oram’s conspiracy 

and Monell claims because Oram failed to demonstrate an underlying 

constitutional violation. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 935 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (a claim of conspiracy under § 1983 does not exist without an 

underlying constitutional violation); Johnson v. City of Seattle, 474 F.3d 634, 638-

39 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[M]unicipalities are only liable under Section 1983 if there is, 

at minimum, an underlying constitutional tort.”); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-93 (1978). 

The magistrate judge did not abuse its discretion in its disposition of the 

parties’ various discovery motions, including its awards of sanctions under Rule 37 

for Oram’s failure to attend his deposition, and its denial of Oram’s reconsideration 

motion of its order denying the motion to compel production of the dispatch 

records. See R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 673 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 

2012) (setting forth standard of review for discovery rulings and sanctions).

The magistrate judge properly exercised its jurisdiction in ruling on Oram’s 

various non-dispositive motions. See Parsons v. Ryan, 912 F.3d 486, 495 (9th Cir. 

2018) (setting forth standard of review); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (listing 

matters over which magistrate judges have jurisdiction).
4 18-35038 

We reject as meritless Oram’s contentions that the district court and the 

magistrate judge denied him due process, the district court acted outside its 

jurisdiction in dismissing the conspiracy claim, and the clerk’s bills of costs 

violated his due process rights and right against double jeopardy. 

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters 

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett 

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Oram’s requests to bifurcate, to serve Johnson, and for an in limine ruling, 

set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied. 

Oram’s motion for leave to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 12) 

is denied. 

AFFIRMED.