# Raymond Nichols v. City of Riverside

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 22, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4432474

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 22, 2019
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4432474

## Opinion text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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Macias, 695 F. App’x 291, 292–93 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished decision).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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4432474. Public record. Not legal advice.