T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L A R R Y IK E I, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. T HE C I T Y A ND C OU NT Y O F H O N O L U L U ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 15405 D. C. No . 1 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 3 9 5 - DA EB MK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f o rth e D is tr ic t o f

H a w a ii D a vi d A . E z r a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 15, 2011 ** H o n o lu lu , H a w a ii B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , W A R D L A W , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L a rry I ke i appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the H on ol ul u p ol i ce defe nd ant s i n thi s § 19 83 ac t i on . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe offi ce rs w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty bec ause Ikei fa i l ed t o rai se a 

# FI LED JU L 05 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rp r o b ab le c a u s e s u p p o r te d I k e i’s a rr e s t. W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f irm . I ke i c a nnota voi d s um m a ry j udgm e ntbe c a us e he ha s f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt

“ af f i rm at i ve ev i dence fr om w hi ch a j ury c ou l d fi nd i n h i s f avor. ” F TCv. S te fa n c h ik , 559 F . 3d 924, 929 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c i t i ng A nd er son v. L i bert

y L ob by, Inc. , 47 7 U . S . 24 2, 25 7 (19 86 )) . T he defendant s’ evi dence es t abl i shed thatIkei m ove d t ow a r d as t or e c l e rk w hi l e poi nt i ng hi s f i nge ra nd y e l l i ng. T hi s be ha vi or c ons t i tut e d pr obabl e c a us e t o a rr e s tI ke i on s us pi c i on of ha r a s s m e nti n vi ol a t i on of H aw ai i R ev i sed S t atu t es § 7 1 1 -1 1 0 6 (1 )(b ), w h i ch cri m i n al i zes “ [i ] n su l t s, t au n t s, o rc h a lle n g e s [ to ] a n o th e rp e r s o n . . . th a t w o u ld c a u s e th e o th e rp e r s o n to re as on abl y bel i eve thatthe ac t or i nt ends t o cause bo di l y i nj ury t o the re ci pi ent . ”

“ [ O ] the rtha n s t a t e m e nt s i n the appe l l a t e br i e f , [ I ke i ] ha s ne ve rof

f e r e d a ny evi dence t o sup po rt[hi s] fa ctual as se rt i on s” denyi ng thathe engaged i n such c o n d u c t. F TCv. P ub l ’g C leari ngH ou se, Inc. , 10 4 F . 3d 11 68 , 11 71 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). T hathe do es no tre m em ber s peaki ng w i th the cl erk i nsi de of the st ore does n o t c o n tr a d ic t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ v e r s io n o f

e v e n ts . Se e S te

fa n c h ik , 559 F . 3d a t929 (“ A no n-m ov ant ’ s bal d ass ert i on s or am er e s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence i n h i s f avor are bo th i nsuffi ci entt o w i thst and sum m ary j ud gm ent . ”) . I ke i e rr one ous l y r e l i e s on SE Cv . P han , 500 F . 3d 895 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , a nd U ni te d State s v . 1 P ar c e l

of R e al3

P ropert y, L ot4, B lock 5 of

E at on A cr es , 90 4 F . 2d 48 7 (9th C i r. 19 90 ). T he di stri ct c our tdi d notgr a nts um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the de f e nda nt s ba s e d on the c onc l us i on thatIkei ’ s a ff

i davi tw as se l f- se rvi ng . R ather, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c on cl ud ed tha t , unl i ke the appe l l a nt s i n P han a nd 1 P arce l , I k e i f a ile d to a f

f irm a tiv e ly c o n tr a d ic t th e e v id e n c e a s to p r o b ab le c au s e o f f e r e d b y th e d e f

e n d a n ts . C

f . P han , 5 0 0 F .3 d a t 9 1 0 ; 1 P arce l , 9 0 4 F .2 d a t 4 9 2 n .3 . T h e r e f o r e , I k e i f

a ile d to c r e a te ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w he the rthe of

f i c e r s ha d “ know l e dge orr e a s onabl y trus tw or thy i nf orm a t i on s uf f i c i e ntt o l e a d ape r s on of r e a s onabl e c a ut i on t o be l i e ve tha ta n of f e ns e ha [ d] been or [w a] s bei ng com m i tt ed by the pers on bei ng arre st ed. ” R od is v . C i t y, C ou nt y of Sa n Francisc o , 558 F . 3d 964, 969 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni ted Stat es v. L op ez , 48 2 F . 3d 10 67 , 10 72 (9th C i r. 20 07 )) . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt p ro p erl y d et erm i n ed th atth e o ffi cers are en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty b ecau se the i rc onduc tdi d “ notvi ol a t e c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d [ F our th A m e ndm e nt ] r i ght s of w hi ch a r ea sonabl e per son w ou l d h ave kno w n. ” P e ars on v . C al lahan , 5 5 5 U . S. 223, 129 S . C t . 808, 815 ( 2009) ( quot i ng H a r lo w v . F itz

g e r a ld , 457 U . S . 800, 818 (198 2)). N or di d the di stri ctcourterr by di sm i ss i ng Ikei ’ s § 19 83 cl ai m base d o n an a lle g e d F ir s t A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . I k e i c la im e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts v io la te d h is4

F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ght s by a rr e s t i ng hi m w i thoutpr obabl e c a us e i n r e t a l i a t i on f or h is th r e a te n in g to f

ile ac o m p la in t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly h e ld th a t th is c la im f a i l s be c a us e I ke i di d notpr e s e ntage nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c tque s t i oni ng the b a s is f o rth e o f f ic e r s ’ p r o b ab le c a u s e to a rr e s t. T h e d istrict co u rt also p ro p er ly g ra n ted su m m ar y ju d g m en t o n Ik ei’s F our t e e nth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m , a s the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e ntdoe s notgove rn “ the const i tut i on al i ty of the dur at i on of or legal j us t i f i c at i on for aprol on ged w arra nt l es s, po st -a rr es t , pre- arra i gn m entcust od y. ” P ie r c e v . Mu ltn o m a h C o u n ty , 7 6 F .3 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 4 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ; c f R e dm an v . C ount

y of San D i ego , 942 F . 2d 1435, 1440 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( not i ng the appl i c abi l i ty of the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt D ue P roce ss C l ause i n the se para t e c on t extof the ri gh t s of pre tri al det ai nees ). A FFI R M ED .