Opinion
22-35577
12-14-2023
WARREN E. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID OLSON, Washington State Patrol Officer; AUTUM KOSTELECKY; SNOHOMISH COUNTY RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 14, 2023 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00781-JCC John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Warren Bell appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against David Olson, a Washington State Patrol Officer who arrested him after a traffic stop. We review de novo, and we affirm.
See C.V. ex rel. Villegas v. City of Anaheim, 823 F.3d 1252, 1255 (9th Cir. 2016).
The district court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of Olson on Bell's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against him. See U.S. Const. amends. IV &XIV. The record before the district court revealed no genuine dispute of material fact that Olson had probable cause both to conduct the traffic stop and to arrest Bell. See United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998); Sanders v. City of San Diego, 93 F.3d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1996). Olson's "ordinary inquiries" into Bell's license, registration, and insurance were an integral component of the stop. United States v. Nault, 41 F.4th 1073, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, ____U.S.____, 143 S.Ct. 617, 214 L.Ed.2d 364 (2023). Moreover, Olson was entitled to rely on the information he received about Bell from the Washington State Department of Licensing in making the arrest, and the record supports Olson's determination that the documents Bell showed him did not call that information into question. See Lopez, 482 F.3d at 1072; see also Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 355, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). That the Washington criminal charges against Bell were subsequently dismissed without prejudice does not tend to show that Olson lacked probable cause at the time of arrest. See Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S.___,___, 139 S.Ct. 1715, 1721, 1728, 204 L.Ed.2d 1 (2019); Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 1995).
We do not consider arguments or claims raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).