Courage Osawe v. Jennifer Tinsley ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COURAGE UHUMWNOMA OSAWE, No. 19-16683
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:18-cv-00600-RCJ-WGC
v.
JENNIFER TINSLEY, DMV Investigator; MEMORANDUM*
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2020**
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District
Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Courage Osawe appeals the district court’s grant of
*
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).
***
The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees. Reviewing de novo,
Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), we
affirm.1
The district court properly concluded that Defendants, Nevada Department
of Motor Vehicle officers, were entitled to qualified immunity. Even assuming a
reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants did not have probable cause to
arrest Osawe for violating Nevada Revised Statutes 482.020 and 482.322, it was at
least reasonably arguable that probable cause existed. See id. at 1078. At the time
Osawe was arrested, Defendants had evidence that Osawe had personally sold one
car and was involved in the sale of another. Further, he did not dispute that his
phone number was listed on advertisements for four vehicles. Osawe had also
been spotted at vehicle auctions. On the basis of this information, an officer could
have reasonably believed that Osawe was dealing vehicles without a license.
Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED.
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case,
we do not recount them here.
2