Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8625809
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Bell v. Estrada
No. 8625809 · Decided November 13, 2006
No. 8625809·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 13, 2006
Citation
No. 8625809
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Patrick Bernard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Oakland police officers in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was unlawfully arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the officers because Bell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Bell violated his parole. See United States v. Stokes, 292 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.2002). Bell’s contention that the officers’ failure to note in their reports that they recognized him is unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Patrick Bernard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Oakland police officers in his 42 U.S.C.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Patrick Bernard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Oakland police officers in his 42 U.S.C.
02§ 1983 action alleging he was unlawfully arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
03The district court properly granted summary judgment to the officers because Bell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Bell violated his parole.
04Bell’s contention that the officers’ failure to note in their reports that they recognized him is unpersuasive.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Patrick Bernard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Oakland police officers in his 42 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Bell v. Estrada in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 13, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8625809 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.