N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID C ARL GUSTAFSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF W EST RIC H LAND; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35025 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05040-EFS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Edwa rd F. She a , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. David C arl Gusta fson a

p pe 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 rising from his a

rre st for a dom e stic viole nc e a ssa

ult. W e hav e jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de novo. Morrison v. Hall , 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th C ir. 2001). W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2014 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).The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gusta fson’ s § 1983 c la im s a ga inst theC ity of W e st Ric hla

nd be c a use Gusta fson fa ile d to ra ise a ge n uine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r any a lle g e d fe de ra l c onstitutiona

l viola tions re sulte d from

an offic ia l c ustom , polic y , or fa ilure to tra in. Se eGale n v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th C ir. 2007) (re quire m e nts for m unic ipa l lia

bility unde r § 1983). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gusta fson’ s § 1983 c la im s a ga inst theindividual de fe nda nts be c a use Gusta fson fa ile d

to ra ise a tria b le disputea s to whe the r the individual de fe nda nts viola te d his Fourth, Fifth, or Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights. Se eC afasso, U.S. e

x re l. v . Ge n. Dy n amic

s C 4 Sy s., Inc . , 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ T o survivesum m ary judgm e nt, a pla i ntiff m

ust se t forth non-spe c ulative e vide n c e of spe c ific fa c ts, not swe e ping c onc lusory

a lle gations.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gusta fson’ s 42 U.S.C . § 14141 c la i m

be c a use the sta

tute only provide s for c i vil a c tions brought by the U nite d State s Attorne y Ge ne ra l. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 14141(b). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gusta fson’ s c la im unde r the Am e ric a

ns with Disa

bilitie s Ac t (“ ADA” ) be c a use Gusta fson fa ile d to ra ise a tria

ble disputea s to whe the r he wa s disa ble d a nd whe the r de fe nda

nts fa ile d 1 2 - 3 5 0 2 5 2to a c c om

m odate any

disa bility . Se eMc Gary

v . C ity of Portland

, 386 F.3d 1259, 1264-65 (9th C ir. 2004) (e le m e nts of Title II ADA c la im). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gusta fson’ s c la im for fa lse arre st a

nd im p risonm e nt be c a

use Gusta fson fa ile d to ra ise a tria ble dispute a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts la c ke d proba ble c a use to a rre st a nd de ta in him for a dom e stic viole n c e a ssa

ult. Se e Mc

Bride v . W alla W alla C ounty , 975 P.2d 1029, 1032 (W a sh. C t. App. 1999) (proba ble c a use is a c o m ple te de fe nse to c la im s for fa lse arre st a

n d im prisonm e nt, a

nd “ e xists when a

n offic e r ha s re a sona

ble grounds to be lie ve a

suspe c t ha s c om

m itte d or is c om

m i tting a c rim e due to thesurrounding c irc um s ta nc e s ” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gusta fson’ s m a lic ious ha

ra s sm e nt c la im

be c a use Gusta fson fa ile d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe the r de fe n d ants injure d him , da m a ge d his prope rty , or thre ate ne d him be c a use of a prote c te d ground. Se eW a sh. R e v. C ode § 9A.36.080(1) (de finition of m a lic ious ha

ra s sm e nt). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in theope ning brie f. Se eSmith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). De fe nda nts’ m o tion to strike , file d on Se pte m b e r 17, 2012, is gra

nte d . AFFIRM E D. 1 2 - 3 5 0 2 5 3