Opinion
20-36121
03-18-2022
MARK DICKERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND; MULTNOMAH COUNTY; MATT JACOBSEN; JOHN DOES, 1-15, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 18, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:19-cv-01126-SB for the District of Oregon Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Plaintiff Mark Dickerson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants City of Portland (City), Multnomah County (County), Officer Matt Jacobsen, and fifteen John Does. Dickerson brought this civil rights action and related Oregon claims alleging that he was wrongfully arrested by Portland police after he struck a pedestrian with his truck. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.
S.R. Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2019).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the City and Jacobsen on Dickerson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for wrongful arrest. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 138 S.Ct. 577, 585-86, 589, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018); Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008); see also U.S. Const. amend. IV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. No reasonable juror could determine that Officer Jacobsen lacked probable cause to arrest Dickerson for reckless driving in light of all the facts and circumstances of which Jacobsen was aware, including Captain Simon's eyewitness account of Dickerson's twice-striking a pedestrian with his truck. Video footage confirms Captain Simon's description. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). The district court properly disregarded the purported factual disputes identified by Dickerson because those are immaterial to whether Officer Jacobsen had probable cause to arrest him for reckless driving. See id.; see also Morehouse v. Haynes, 253 P.3d 1068, 1074-75 (Or. 2011).
See McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Wesby, ____ U.S. at ____, 138 S.Ct. at 586-89.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.140(1); see also id. § 161.085(9)
Because there was no constitutional violation, the district court correctly determined that Dickerson's Monell claim against the City failed as a matter of law. See Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011). Similarly, his Oregon false arrest claim against the City failed in light of the disposition of the § 1983 wrongful arrest claim. See Miller v. Columbia County, 385 P.3d 1214, 1220-21 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). We decline to consider any matters that Dickerson failed to specifically and distinctly raise and argue in his briefing on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994).
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-36, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
Moreover, the grant of summary judgment did not violate Dickerson's constitutional right to a jury trial. See Diamond Door Co. v. Lane-Stanton Lumber Co., 505 F.2d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 1974); see also id. at 1203 n.6.; U.S. Const. amend. VII.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).