Maher Salama v. County of Los Angeles , 549 F. App'x 620 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAHER SALAMA, No. 11-56675
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07854-DMG-RC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 2, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. Maher Salama’s arrest pursuant to a valid, judicially issued warrant was
supported by probable cause. Judge Diesman made an independent probable cause
determination, based on a misdemeanor complaint filed by the assistant district
attorney. Our deferential review of judicial probable cause findings is limited. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 3
ask only whether the factual record presented to Judge Diesman provided a
“substantial basis for concluding there was a fair probability” that Salama
committed the offense. United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir.
2006) (en banc). Given the evidence in the record—in particular the interviews of
the two victims—there was a substantial basis for finding probable cause. As the
district court aptly put it: “Although Plaintiff disputes the truth of Alissa and
Melissa’s statements to the investigating officers, it is the fact of their statements to
the officers rather than the statements’ substantive truth that is material.”
2. Salama failed to present any evidence of “fraud, corruption, perjury,
fabricated evidence, or other wrongful conduct undertaken in bad faith” to rebut
the probable cause determination. Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062,
1067 (9th Cir. 2004). Contrary to Salama’s assertion, the assistant district attorney
was aware of the inconsistencies in the victims’ stories but considered those
inconsistences to be “expected and typical” in this type of case. There is no
evidence that the investigating officers concealed or falsified evidence, or
otherwise improperly pressured the assistant district attorney. Salama’s contention
that defendants should have taken greater or different investigatory measures does
not create a factual dispute about the measures the defendants did take, nor does it
undermine the sufficiency of the existing evidence supporting probable cause.
Page 3 of 3
3. The district court correctly concluded that absent a constitutional
violation, Salama cannot prevail on his municipal liability, false arrest, and Bane
Act claims. See Johnson v. City of Seattle, 474 F.3d 634, 638–39 (9th Cir. 2007);
O’Toole v. Superior Ct., 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 531, 548–49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006);
Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702, 716–17 (Cal. Ct. App.
2006).
AFFIRMED.