ALBERT EDENSHAW V. NMS SECURITY, No. 18-35095 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT EDENSHAW, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-35095 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00011-SLG v. MEMORANDUM* NMS SECURITY, a Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Albert Edenshaw appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) action arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We * 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). affirm. The district court properly dismissed Edenshaw’s § 1983 conspiracy claims against the Anchorage Community Development Authority, the Anchorage Police Department and NMS Security because Edenshaw failed to allege facts sufficient show that these entities conspired between and among themselves to violate Edenshaw’s constitutional rights. See Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983) (“To prove a conspiracy between private parties and the government under § 1983, an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights must be shown.” (citation omitted)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Edenshaw’s false arrest claim because Edenshaw failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was arrested without probable cause. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“To maintain an action for false arrest, [plaintiff] must plead facts that would show [defendant ordered] or otherwise procured the arrests and the arrests were without probable cause.”); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. AFFIRMED. 2 18-35095

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.