Albert Edenshaw v. Nms Security, a Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT EDENSHAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NMS SECURITY, a Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35095
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00011-SLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Albert Edenshaw appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) action arising from his arrest. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35095
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Edenshaw’s § 1983 conspiracy claims
against the Anchorage Community Development Authority, the Anchorage Police
Department and NMS Security because Edenshaw failed to allege facts sufficient
show that these entities conspired between and among themselves to violate
Edenshaw’s constitutional rights. See Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir.
1983) (“To prove a conspiracy between private parties and the government under
§ 1983, an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights
must be shown.” (citation omitted)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Edenshaw’s false arrest claim because
Edenshaw failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was arrested without
probable cause. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012)
(en banc) (“To maintain an action for false arrest, [plaintiff] must plead facts that
would show [defendant ordered] or otherwise procured the arrests and the arrests
were without probable cause.”); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --