Victor Robinson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16429
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00829-JCM-NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Victor Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection
with his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
* 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).
FILED
AUG 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16429
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Robinson’s
excessive force, assault, and battery claims because Robinson failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Bunn used an
unreasonable amount of force against him. See Tuuamalemalo v. Greene, 946 F.3d
471, 478 (9th Cir. 2019) (under Nevada law, police officers can use the amount of
force which appears reasonably necessary); Espinosa v. City & County of San
Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of an
excessive force claim); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt the
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Robinson’s equal
protection claim because Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether Bunn discriminated against him on the basis of his membership in a
protected class. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114,
1123 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To prevail on an Equal Protection claim brought under §
1983, [plaintiff] must allege facts plausibly showing that the defendants acted with
an intent or purpose to discriminate against [him] based upon membership in a
protected class.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --