Mascorro v. The City of San Diego, 3:21-cv-01427

Plaintiff Eloy Mascorro alleged he was unlawfully arrested by San Diego police officers Larson, Rodriguez, and Green on September 20, 2020, for refusing to leave a bench outside the House of Norway in Balboa Park after being requested by a property agent and park ranger.
The interaction was supported with declarations, body worn camera footage, and undisputed officers’ testimony; Mascorro provided no contradictory evidence.
Plaintiff argued the bench was public property and declined to provide identifying information or comply with officers’ requests.
After his arrest for trespass and refusing to identify himself, Mascorro was evaluated by medics and declined to sign a citation, leading to jail transport.
Procedurally, Mascorro’s Third Amended Complaint advanced only one remaining claim (unlawful arrest) against the officer defendants; other claims and parties (including Doe defendants) were previously dismissed or unidentified by Mascorro after discovery closed.
Plaintiff additionally moved for judicial notice of purported new evidence, reconsideration of prior orders, and relief for court-imposed procedural requirements; the court ruled against him on these issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of arrest	Arrest was unlawful; no probable cause for trespass as bench was public property and Mascorro did nothing illegal	Arrest was lawful; probable cause established by refusal to leave private property after being asked by authorized agent and officer	Arrest lawful; probable cause existed for trespass under the circumstances
Probable cause for trespassing	Plaintiff claimed occupancy of public property, so trespassing statute not triggered	Officers relied on Lee's authority as property agent and clear refusal to leave after notice	Probable cause met; belief in commission of trespass was reasonable
Dismissal of Doe defendants	Plaintiff sought more time to identify Doe defendants once procedural hurdles (service issue) removed	Discovery closed without identification or service of Does, so they must be dismissed	Doe defendants dismissed; case cannot proceed against them
Judicial notice/Reconsideration/Relief from order	Plaintiff alleged court errors, unfair procedures, and new evidence supporting relief	No new material evidence; court’s instructions/procedures were proper and consistently upheld	Motions denied; court’s procedures and prior rulings were appropriate

Dubner v. City & Cty. of S.F., 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) (identifies standard for § 1983 unlawful arrest/Fourth Amendment claims)
Lingo v. City of Salem, 832 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2016) (defines probable cause for warrantless arrest)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment framework; burden-shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine issue of material fact in summary judgment)
Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (arrest justified if officers have a reasonable basis to believe a crime occurred)