The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 22 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND NICHOLS; DANIEL No. 18-55135
NICHOLS,
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 5:14-cv-00364-JGB-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF RIVERSIDE; DANIEL
MACIAS; MICHAEL FOSTER,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
STEPHANIE WYSINGER;
COMMUNITY CARE RAHAB CENTER,
LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 15, 2019
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW,** District
Judge.
Defendants, City of Riverside police officers Daniel Macias and Michael
Foster, appeal the district court’s order denying summary judgment on qualified
immunity. Plaintiffs Raymond and Daniel Nichols were arrested for allegedly
stealing an air mattress that they had rented on behalf of their mother. They were
released from jail the following day, and no charges were filed. We previously
held that these officers lacked probable cause to arrest the brothers. Nichols v.
Macias, 695 F. App’x 291, 292–93 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished decision). The
only issue here is whether it was reasonable for Defendants to believe that there
was probable cause so as to receive immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. Rosenbaum
v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
We have held that the existence of a dispute over the amount of a bill or the
right to possess are civil in nature and ordinarily do not give rise to probable cause
to arrest. Stevens v. Rose, 298 F.3d 880, 883–84 (9th Cir. 2002); Allen v. City of
Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1996); Kennedy v. L.A. Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
702, 706 (9th Cir.1990), overruled on other grounds by Act Up!/Portland v.
Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 872–73 (9th Cir.1993). This was such a dispute. As noted,
**
The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
2
the officers lacked probable cause. Raymond and Daniel told the police officers
that they had rented the mattress, and they produced the rental receipt and
agreement for the officers’ review. The only dispute was whether the brothers
could move that mattress before delivery of a new one. The district court therefore
properly held that Defendants were not entitled to immunity because the law was
clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs’ arrest in 2013.
AFFIRMED.
3