Michael Sahakian v. Orloff

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 23, 2023
• Docket: 20-55702
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL SAHAKIAN, No. 20-55702

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04204-JFW-DFM

v. MEMORANDUM* ORLOFF, Officer; COLE, Officer; JEFFREY DAVIS, Detective; RICHARD PESTI,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

CITY OF GLENDALE; CITY OF GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT; DOES, 1 through 25, official capacity,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Michael Sahakian appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and judicial deception in

connection with two separate arrests. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir.

2019). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Orloff

and Cole because Sahakian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether these defendants’ use of force was unreasonable in light of the facts and

circumstances. See id. (setting forth objective reasonableness standard for

excessive force determinations and explaining that “[o]nly information known to

the officer at the time the conduct occurred is relevant”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Davis

because Sahakian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

Davis deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions in requesting a

warrant for violation of a court order. See Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931, 937 (9th

Cir. 2011) (“To maintain a false arrest claim for judicial deception, a plaintiff must

show that the officer who applied for the arrest warrant deliberately or recklessly

made false statements or omissions that were material to the finding of probable

cause.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ewing v. City of Stockton,

588 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that a claim of judicial deception

2 20-55702 may not be based on omissions or misstatements resulting from negligence, good

faith mistakes, or an officer’s erroneous assumptions about the evidence he has

received).

Sahakian’s motion for leave to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry

No. 40) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

3 20-55702