Case Name: Sunita PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY; Joseph M. Arpaio; David Hendershott; Brian Sands; David Trombi; Chad Brackman; Gary McGuire, individually and in their official capacities; Ava Arpaio; Anna Hendershott; Jane Doe Brackman; Jane Doe McGuire, individually; John and Jane Does, 1-8 (whose identities are unknown but who are known to be Deputies and/or supervisory personnel of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, individually and in their official capacities), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-17
Citations: 585 F. App'x 452
Docket Number: No. 12-16634
Parties: Sunita PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY; Joseph M. Arpaio; David Hendershott; Brian Sands; David Trombi; Chad Brackman; Gary McGuire, individually and in their official capacities; Ava Arpaio; Anna Hendershott; Jane Doe Brackman; Jane Doe McGuire, individually; John and Jane Does, 1-8 (whose identities are unknown but who are known to be Deputies and/or supervisory personnel of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, individually and in their official capacities), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
Sunita PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY; Joseph M. Arpaio; David Hendershott; Brian Sands; David Trombi; Chad Brackman; Gary McGuire, individually and in their official capacities; Ava Arpaio; Anna Hendershott; Jane Doe Brackman; Jane Doe McGuire, individually; John and Jane Does, 1-8 (whose identities are unknown but who are known to be Deputies and/or supervisory personnel of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, individually and in their official capacities), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16634.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 2014.
Filed Oct. 17, 2014.
Darius Charney, Pamela Carol Spees, Esquire, New York, NY, Barbara Moses, Esquire, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, NJ, Joel Brooks Robbins, Robbins & Curtin, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Ann Uglietta, Esquire, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Barry M. Markson, Thomas Thomas & Markson, PC, Laurence G. Tinsley, Jr., Esquire, Senior General Counsel, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sunita Patel appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Maricopa County and six individual Maricopa County Sheriffs Office deputies and officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Defendants-Ap-pellees. Under the totality of the circumstances known to the Deputy McGuire at the time of the arrest, a reasonable officer would believe that he or she had probable cause to arrest Patel for -willfully failing to comply with Lieutenant Brackman's order to "clear the driveway." Thus, the district court did not err in finding, as a matter of law, that Deputy McGuire had probable cause to arrest Patel.
As there was probable cause to arrest Patel for willfully failing to comply with an official order, the Court need not address qualified immunity or whether Deputy McGuire also had probable cause to arrest Patel for recklessly interfering with traffic on a public thoroughfare or highway. Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1207 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, Patel's Monell and supervisory liability claims fail as there was no underlying constitutional violation.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees on all of Patel's claims.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.