PATRICK CALDWELL V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC S, No. 18-15926 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 5 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICK DEMON CALDWELL II, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-15926 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02582-DLR-ESW v. MEMORANDUM* ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, named as Department of Public Safety; B. HOUCHENS, Highway Patrol Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Patrick Demon Caldwell II appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims relating to a traffic stop and impoundment of his vehicle. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Caldwell’s action for failure to state a claim because Caldwell failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996) (no Fourth Amendment violation when officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred); Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992) (defining a seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of an equal protection claim). We do not consider 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 18-15926

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.