DEAN KIDDER, II V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, No. 15-55595 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEAN MARTIN KIDDER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55595 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06218-SVW-E v. MEMORANDUM* LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Dean Martin Kidder, II, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvement & Serv. Ass'n, Inc., 642 F.3d 765, 775 (9th Cir. 2011). * 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). We affirm. The district court properly entered a stipulated judgment in favor of defendants because Kidder failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion to execute the traffic stop or probable cause to conduct the automobile search. See United States v. Willis, 431 F.3d 709, 714-16 (9th Cir. 2005) (no Fourth Amendment violation where officer has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred); United States v. PinelaHernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2001) (police may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 15-55595

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.