Safadi v. County of Snohomish

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-2550
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMAR SAFADI, No. 24-2550 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-00887-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH; SNOHOMISH COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY; SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Amar Safadi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, excessive force, and improper

* 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). hiring by Snohomish County after he was arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated

several times. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Safadi failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants have a pattern,

practice, or policy that caused any deprivation of his federal rights. See Williams v.

City of Sparks, 112 F.4th 635, 646 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining requirements for

municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Safadi’s contentions that the district

court applied an incorrect legal standard or failed to examine his evidence.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2550