NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN BALLENTINE; et al., No. 17-16728 Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01584-APG-GWF v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE MEMORANDUM* DEPARTMENT, Defendant, MIKE WALLACE, Sergeant; JOHN LIBERTY, Lieutenant, Defendants, and CHRISTOPHER T. TUCKER, Detective, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted and Submission Deferred March 15, 2019** * 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).

Resubmitted June 28, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the plaintiffs allege that Las Vegas police officers arrested them in retaliation for protected speech. The district court denied in part the officers’ motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity, and this appeal followed.

In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff pursuing a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim must generally plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest. 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1723-24 (2019) (abrogating Ford v. Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). The Court noted, however, “that the no-probable-cause requirement should not apply when a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.” Id. at 1727. Because neither the district court nor the parties had the benefit of Nieves when the order on appeal was decided, we vacate that order and remand for further proceedings in light of Nieves.

VACATED AND REMANDED.