N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AVON JONES, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-56713 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-07402-ODW -R Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right, II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 18, 2013 ** B e fore : TALLM AN, M . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. R avon Jone s a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m a ry judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l viola tions in c onne c tion with his a rre st a nd prose c ution for a

rm e d robbe ry . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo. Arpin v . Santa C lara Valle y Transp. Age nc

y , 

# FIL ED JUN 24 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th C ir. 2001). W e a ffirm
.

The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Jone s’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt fa lse arre st a nd im prisonm e nt c la im

be c a use Jone s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine d isputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts ha d proba b le c a use for his a rre st a nd prose c ution. Se e Unite d State s v . Lope z , 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th C ir. 2007) (de fining proba ble c a use an d e xpla ining tha

t it is a n obje c tive sta

nda rd); C abre ra v . C

ity of Huntington Park

, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th C i r. 1998) (pe r c uriam ) (a

pla intiff m

ust show there wa s no proba ble c a use in orde r to pre va il on a
se c t ion 1983 c la i m

for fa lse arre st a

nd im prisonm e nt); c

f. Mc She r

ry v . C ity of Long Be ac h , 584 F.3d 1129, 1136 (9th C ir. 2009) (a judic ia l de c i sion to hold a de fe nda nt to a n swe r a fte r a

pre lim ina

ry he aring is prima

fa c ie e vide nc e of proba

ble c a use , whic h c an

only be re butte d by

e vide nc e tha

t “ t he c rim ina l prose c ution wa s induc e d by fra ud, c orruption, perjury , fa bric ate d e vide nc e , or othe r wrongful c onduc t unde rtake n in ba d fa ith” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Jone s’ s Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt e qua l prote c tion c la im be c a use Jone s fa i le d to ra ise a ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r “ e nforc e m e nt ha d a disc rim inatory

e ffe c t a nd [de fe nda nts] we re m otiva

te d by a disc rim inatory

purpose .” Lac e

y v . Maric o pa C ounty , 693 F.3d 896, 920 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks

1 1
- 5 6 7 1 3 2om i tte d) (ide ntify ing there quire m e nts for a n e qua l prote c t ion c la im). Jone s’ s c onte ntions tha

t the distric t c ourt ove rlooke d e vide nc e and fa ile d to take into a c c ount his pro se sta t us a re unsupporte d by

the re c ord. AFFIRM E D.

1 1
- 5 6 7 1 3 3