PAULA SKERSTON V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 12-56624 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 14 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAULA SKERSTON, No. 12-56624 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:11-cv-00803-DDP-RZ v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2014** Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Paula Skerston, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of her Fourth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Skerston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. See Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasonable suspicion requires that an officer have specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004) (inquiry into a suspect s identity is a routine and accepted part of an investigatory stop and serves important government interests, including informing an officer that the suspect is wanted for any other offense). AFFIRMED. 2 12-56624

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.