From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bikle v. Santos

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jul 1, 2015
609 F. App'x 424 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-55077

07-01-2015

PHILIP C. BIKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. SANTOS, Officer, in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Philip C. Bikle appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a traffic citation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bikle's action as frivolous because Bikle's claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a "frivolous" claim lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact; "[the] term 'frivolous' . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation"); see also New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 114, 117-18 (1986) (there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in a vehicle's VIN number under the Fourth Amendment); cf. In re Arturo D, 38 P.3d 433, 450-51 (Cal. 2002) (a police officer's limited search of the vehicle's glove compartment and other areas constituted a reasonable search when the plaintiff was unable to produce a driver's license and registration).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Bikle's action without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review).

We do not consider issues or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Bikle's requests for judicial notice, filed on August 28, 2014, are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Bikle v. Santos

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jul 1, 2015
609 F. App'x 424 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Bikle v. Santos

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP C. BIKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. SANTOS, Officer, in his…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 1, 2015

Citations

609 F. App'x 424 (9th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

Decormier v. Nationstar Servicers, LLC

Accordingly, the court will sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's frivolous complaint for lack of subject matter…