N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM IE B A DDOUR ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. SEAN HAR T; e t a l .,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-15289 D.C . No. 4:14-c v-01355-PJH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 26, 2018 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Jam ie B a ddour a

ppe a ls pro se the distric t c o urt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in B a ddour’ s 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t Da ly C ity Polic e Offic e r Se an Hart c onspire d with B a ddour’ s e x-husba nd, M a z e n Sa lfiti, to viola te B a ddour’ s c onstitutiona

l rights a nd sta te la w by unla wfully arre sting he r on c ha rge s of 

# FIL ED N OV 28 2018 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).dom e stic viole n c e and c hild e nda nge rm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Be c k v . C ity of Upland

, 527 F.3d 853, 867 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on B a d dour’ s c onspira c y

c la im s be c a

use B a ddour fa ile d to ra i se a tria ble disputea s to whe the r de fe nda nts a gre e d to deprive he r of any c onstitutiona

l right. Se e C

row e v . C ounty of San Die

go , 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th C ir. 2010) (a c onspira c y

c la im re quire s the
e xiste nc e of a

n a gre e m e nt or m e e ting of them inds to viola te c onstitutiona

l rights). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on B a d dour’ s m a lic ious prose c ution a

nd fa l se arre st c la im s be c a use de fe nda

nts e sta blishe d tha

t Offic e r Hart ha d proba

ble c a use to a rre st B a ddour. Se eBe c k

, 527 F.3d a

t 864 (a fa lse arre st c l a im

re quire s the a

b se nc e of proba

ble c a use ); Aw abdy

v . C ity of Ade lanto , 368 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th C ir. 2004) (a m a lic ious prose c ution c la im
re quire s the sa

m e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d Offic e r Hart qua lifie d im m unity , a nd prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on B a ddour’ s m unic ipa l lia

bility and “ stigm a plus” c la i m s, be c a

use B a ddour fa i le d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe the r de fe nda nts viola te d a ny of he r c onstitutiona

l rights. Se e Pe arson v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (gove rnm e nt offic ia ls a

re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity
2whe re the re is no viola tion of plaintiff’ s c onstitutiona l rights or the

right a t issue
wa s not “ c le arly

e sta b l ishe d” at the tim e of the a lle ge d viola tion); C ity of Los Ange le s v . He lle r , 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (pe r c uriam ) (if de fe nda

nt polic e offic e rs inflic te d no c onstitutiona l injury , the m

unic i pa lity

c annot be lia

b l e for dam a ge s); Mille r v . C

alifornia , 355 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th C ir. 2004) (a “ stigm a plus” c la i m

re quire s de fam ation plus the de priva tion of a c onstitutiona

l right). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing B a d dour’ s m otion to strikefrom

e vide nc e a

vide o ta ke n on Sa lfiti’ s c e ll phonebe c a use B a ddour did not show why

the vide o wa s ina dm issible
. Se e Boy d v . C ity & C ty . of S.F. , 576 F.3d 938, 943 (9th C ir. 2009) (sta nda rd of re vie w); se e ge ne rally Orr v
. Bank

of Ame ric a, N

T & SA , 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ A tria l c ourt c an only
c onside r a dm issiblee vide nc e in ruling on a m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt.” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to c onside r B a ddour’ s “ Supple m e nta l Opposition” to the m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt be c a use B a ddour file d it a fte r the de a dline for any opposition wa s due and the re is no provision in the

Loc a l R ule s for filing a

supple m e nta l opposition. S e e S. C al. Edison C o. v . Ly nc h , 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ Distric t c ourts ha v e

‘ i nhe re nt powe r’ to c ontrol the ir doc ke ts.” (c ita tion omitte d)). AFFIRM E D.
3