Robert Garber v. Gildardo Vizcarra, individual

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT GARBER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GILDARDO VIZCARRA, individual and
official capacity as a police officer for the
City of Los Angeles General Services
Department; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-56901
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-05657-DDP-
RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Robert Garber appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful search and seizure, harassment, and
FILED
FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-56901 2
conspiracy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garber’s claims
alleging unlawful search and seizure because Garber failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendant police officers lacked probable
cause to arrest him. See United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.
2007) (“Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or
reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable
caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person
being arrested.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garber’s claim
alleging harassment in violation of his substantive due process rights because
Garber failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers
harassed him.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garber’s claim
alleging conspiracy because Garber failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the officers agreed to deprive him or actually deprived him of
any constitutional right. See Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010)
(explaining the requirements of a conspiracy claim under § 1983).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-56901 3
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garber’s claim
alleging municipal liability because Garber failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the officers violated any constitutional right. See City
of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (per curiam) (if defendant
police officers inflicted no constitutional injury, the municipality cannot be liable
for damages).
We reject Garber’s contention that the district court committed misconduct
by ruling against him.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --