Opinion
21-56230
10-18-2022
NANCY JANE GEIGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAVIS MOSSBROOKS, individually; CHARLES L. REMINGTON, Jr., individually, Defendants-Appellees, and CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH; et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 8:19-cv-02299-CAS-AGR for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Nancy Jane Geiger appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Geiger failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop or whether the eight-minute stop was unduly prolonged. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000) (officers may make brief investigatory stops based on "reasonable suspicion" and "are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation"); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685-86 (1985) (there is "no rigid time limitation" on stops, and the relevant inquiry is "whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly"); United States v. Edwards, 761 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2014) (a telephone tip can provide reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop if it has sufficient indicia of reliability).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).