arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.”); cf. Awabdy v. City of Ade lanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Among the ways that a plaintiff can rebut a prima fade finding of probable cause is by showing that the criminal prosecution was induced by fraud, corruption, perjury, fabricated evidence, or other wrongful conduct undertaken in bad faith.”). Plaintiffs eighth claim alleges that Nuti unlawfully detained Plaintiff for 64.5 hours despite having fabricated all the evidence against Plaintiff. Taking the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, Nuti is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 684 (9th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). After careful consideration of all the
holding that probable cause did not fade away merely because the police arrested the defendant the following day holding that even though the plaintiff was incarcerated for only one day before his extradition hearing the complaint was sufficient to establish a due process violation at the pleadings stage because it alleged among other things that the defendants falsely arrested the plaintiff without probable cause and with deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs rights holding the evidence sufficient to establish the defendants knowing possession of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt when among other things the defendant admitted to a law enforcement officer that he had acquired the shotgun for his protection and that officers testimony went uncontradicted at trial holding that in order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under  1983 a plaintiff must establish among other things the absence of probable cause for the initiation of the proceedings against her holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime