From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lull v. Cnty. of Sacramento

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2022
No. 21-16730 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2022)

Opinion

21-16730

10-18-2022

CHRISTOPHER LULL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; CORY STEWART, Defendants-Appellees, and MICHAEL DOANE, Defendant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 12, 2022[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01211-TLN-JDP

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Christopher Lull appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of his detention and arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Stewart because Lull failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Stewart lacked either reasonable suspicion to investigate the parking violation or probable cause to arrest Lull. See Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011) ("An officer has probable cause to make a warrantless arrest when the facts and circumstances within his knowledge are sufficient for a reasonably prudent person to believe that the suspect has committed a crime."); United States v. Choudhry, 461 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (no Fourth Amendment violation where officer has reasonable suspicion of a parking violation); see also Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct. 1715, 1722-25 (2019) (a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest requires that a plaintiff show he was arrested without probable cause in retaliation for protected speech).

We reject as unsupported by the record Lull's contention that the district court ignored his official capacity claims.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Lull's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.

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).


Summaries of

Lull v. Cnty. of Sacramento

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2022
No. 21-16730 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Lull v. Cnty. of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER LULL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; CORY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 18, 2022

Citations

No. 21-16730 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2022)