Bell v. Estrada

Ninth Circuit

Bell v. Estrada

205 F. App'x 598

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2006

DocketNo. 05-17439

StatusPublished

This text of 205 F. App'x 598 (Bell v. Estrada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Estrada, 205 F. App'x 598 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Patrick Bernard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Oakland police officers in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was unlawfully arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the officers because Bell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Bell violated his parole. See United States v. Stokes, 292 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.2002).

Bell’s contention that the officers’ failure to note in their reports that they recognized him is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Patrick Bernard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Oakland police officers in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was unlawfully arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the officers because Bell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Bell violated his parole. See United States v. Stokes, 292 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.2002).

Bell’s contention that the officers’ failure to note in their reports that they recognized him is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F. App'x 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-estrada-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack