Jamar James Evans v. Atwater Police Department

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAMAR JAMES EVANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-16169
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00126-OWW-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jamar James Evans appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his arrest.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v.
Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16169 2
In opposition to summary judgment, Evans contended that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to hear his § 1983 action because of California Government
Code § 945.3. The district court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction to
consider Evans’s action. See Harding v. Galceran, 889 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir.
1989) (California Government Code § 945.3 does not prohibit a § 1983 action).
Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --