ANDRE ANDREWS V. OSCAR DOMINGUEZ, No. 14-56688 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 04 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDRE ANDREWS, No. 14-56688 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-08263-MWFVBK v. OSCAR DOMINGUEZ, Individual and a police officer of the Long Beach Police Department, official capacity; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Andre Andrews appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de * 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). novo. Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Andrews failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his encounter with defendant Dominguez rose to the level of a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that no seizure occurred when officer parked behind an individual in a parked car without lights or sirens; approached the car on foot; did not draw or touch a weapon; and engaged in brief, cordial, and courteous questioning); see also Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991) (officers can question individuals, ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage even without basis for suspecting a particular individual). Andrews’ argument that the district court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to him is unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 14-56688

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.