EDWARD DAYTON V. CITY OF FAIRFIELD, No. 18-17115 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD R. DAYTON, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-17115 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01898-KJM-KJN v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees, and CHRISTINA L. BROWNING, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Edward R. Dayton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from a property inspection and nuisance abatement procedures carried out at his residence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Dayton’s due process claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because Dayton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not afforded notice and meaningful opportunities to be heard. See Schneider v. County of San Diego, 28 F.3d 89, 92 (9th Cir. 1994). The district court properly dismissed Dayton’s unlawful search and seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment because Dayton failed to allege facts sufficient to show a lack of probable cause for the warrant, see United States v. Artis, 919 F.3d 1123, 1131 (9th Cir. 2019), and the warrant was sufficiently particular as to what could be searched, see Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2006). See also United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 1986) (a warrant does not fail for lack of specificity “if a more precise description of the items subject to seizure is not possible”). The district court properly dismissed Dayton’s privacy claim under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments because Dayton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that either amendment provides a basis for Dayton’s alleged right to privacy. See 2 18-17115 Schowengerdt v. United States, 944 F.2d 483, 490 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting privacy theory under the Ninth Amendment as “meritless”). AFFIRMED. 3 18-17115

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.