Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Geremia v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Citation: 45 F. App'x 825Docket: No. 01-15840; D.C. No. CV-97-01166-DWH
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 16, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
John David Geremia appeals the summary judgment favoring the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Detective Ball, along with the denial of his motions for reconsideration. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the lower court's decisions. The court reviews summary judgment de novo and the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to both the Police Department and Detective Ball in his official capacity, as Geremia did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims of municipal policies leading to improper arrests or inadequate training of officers. The court cited relevant precedents to support this conclusion. Additionally, the court found that Geremia failed to provide evidence that Detective Ball caused a constitutional injury, which is essential for overcoming qualified immunity. It noted that police officers are not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if an independent decision by a district attorney led to the charges filed against Geremia. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Geremia's motions for reconsideration, as he failed to present adequate grounds for relief. Similarly, his request to compel discovery was denied due to lack of factual support for his claims regarding withheld evidence. Other arguments raised by Geremia were deemed meritless, and the court did not consider issues raised for the first time in his Reply Brief. The judgment is affirmed, and the disposition is not publishable or citable in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.