PAUL HUPP V. TERRANCE HUBBS, No. 16-55266 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL HUPP, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55266 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02560-VAP-SP v. MEMORANDUM* TERRANCE R. HUBBS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Paul Hupp appeals pro se from district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure * 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). 12(b)(6). Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hupp’s Fourth Amendment claim arising out of defendant Hubbs’ alleged license plate check because Hubbs’ act of running a license plate check to access Hupp’s home address did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus did not require probable cause. See United States v. Diaz-Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007) (a police officer does not conduct a search under the Fourth Amendment when he sees a license plate in plain view and uses it to access non-private information about the car and its owner). We reject as without merit Hupp’s various contentions about the district court’s bias, its assignment of cases to particular judges, and its failure to provide an opportunity for oral argument. 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 16-55266

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.