BARBARA BROWN V. SCOTT BURTON, No. 17-55698 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 12 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARBARA E. BROWN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-55698 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00294-CJC-E v. MEMORANDUM* SCOTT BURTON, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 10, 2018** Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges Barbara E. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment violations for improper detention and arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (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). and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s Fourth Amendment claim for improper detention and arrest because Brown failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants (1) had a reasonable suspicion to detain Brown while investigating a 911 call for a domestic disturbance, and (2) had probable cause to arrest her pursuant to California Penal Code § 148(a)(1). See Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 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. PalosMarquez, 591 F.3d 1272, 1274 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An investigatory stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot.” (citations and quotations omitted)); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for the purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”). The audio recordings of the officers’ interaction with and handling of the plaintiff demonstrate that her claims against them are spurious. We agree with the district court that the recordings “refute by blatant contradiction” most of 2 17-55698 Brown’s assertions. The officers’ treatment of her as captured on the recordings was professional, respectful, and courteous. The district court properly dismissed Brown’s claims against unnamed John Doe defendants because Brown failed to make any factual allegations as to these claims. See Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal is proper when plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim). We reject Brown’s meritless contentions that the district court was biased against her, improperly transferred her case to the district court in Los Angeles, and improperly denied her request for appointment of counsel. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised 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); see also United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 17-55698
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.
