Narrative Opinion Summary
Djehuty Ma’at-Ra appeals pro se from a district court's summary judgment that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which claimed that the defendants lacked probable cause for his arrest. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conducts a de novo review. The court affirms the district court's decision based on the magistrate judge's November 9, 2005 report, which was fully adopted in the district court's November 30, 2005 order. It concludes that Ma’at-Ra did not present a triable issue of fact regarding any violation of his constitutional rights during his stop, arrest, and detention by Glendale police. The court also finds that Ma’at-Ra's remaining arguments are without merit. The decision is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Jurisdiction and Review Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's summary judgment de novo, under its jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conducts a de novo review.
Non-Publication and Precedent Valuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is designated as not suitable for publication or as precedent, except under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Probable Cause for Arrestsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's claim that the defendants lacked probable cause for his arrest was dismissed, as he did not demonstrate any violation of constitutional rights during his stop, arrest, and detention.
Reasoning: It concludes that Ma’at-Ra did not present a triable issue of fact regarding any violation of his constitutional rights during his stop, arrest, and detention by Glendale police.
Summary Judgment in Civil Rights Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's grant of summary judgment was affirmed because the appellant failed to present evidence of a triable issue regarding the alleged constitutional violations.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's decision based on the magistrate judge's November 9, 2005 report, which was fully adopted in the district court's November 30, 2005 order.