N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SAM ANTHA M A R TIN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DEB OR AH KNAAN; JAM ES C HER R ETTE; STEPHEN W

ATSON; DOES, 1 through 10, inc l usive ; C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-55769 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-02809-R GK-E
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEEH, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 19 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ge orge C ara m

Ste e h III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.Sa m antha M artin a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s a d

ve rse grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt in he r la

wsuit a ga inst form e r De puty Distric t Attorne y

De bora h Kna an
and the C ounty

of Los Ange l e s. B e c a

use the fa c ts a

re known to the

pa rtie s, we do not re pe a t the m

he re . I The distric t c ourt did not e rr by granting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Kna an on M artin’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im . M artin c la im s tha t Kna an c a use d M artin to bearre ste d without proba b le c a use whe n, in support of a n a pplic a tion for
a body a tta c hm e nt wa

rra nt, Kna an file d a

de c la ra tion tha t a lle ge dly c onta ine d fa lse sta te m e nts a nd om itte d m a te ria l fa c ts. The re c o rd, howe v e r, re v e a ls no suc h fa lse sta te m e nts or m a te ria l om i ssions, so M a rtin ha s fa ile d to show a

Fourth Am e ndm e nt viola

tion. II Nor did the distric t c ourt e rr by granting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Kna an on M artin’ s Fourte e n t h Am e ndm e n t c la i m . M artin provide s no a u thority for the proposition tha

t the c o nstitutiona

l right to proc e dura l due proc e ss re quire s a pre -a rre s t he aring. As M artin doe s not a rgue tha t the e vide ntia

ry he a ring a fforde d to he r unde r C a lifornia Pe n a l C ode § 1332 wa s c onstitutiona lly insuffic ie nt, she ha s fa ile d to show tha

t suc h proc e s s viola

t e d the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt. M artin’ s
2othe r c la i m e d viola tions of theFourte e nth Am e ndm e nt— nam e ly , tha

t Kna an fa ile d to obse rve M artin’ s rights unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 1219(b) a

nd “ M arsy ’ s Law,” C a l. C onst. a

rt. I, § 28(b)— are wa ive d be c a use M artin did not raise suc h
argum e nts be fore the distric t c ourt. Se e Ye ti by Molly , Ltd. v . De c k

e rs Outdoor C orp. , 259 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ W e m ay de c line to re a c h

an issue if it
wa s not ra ise d suffic ie ntly for the tria l c ourt to rule on it.” (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d)). III Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not e rr by granting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the C o unty

on M artin’ s Fourth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt c la im s, sinc e she ha s not shown a

ge nuine issue of m a te ria l fa c t re g arding the e xiste nc e of a
c onstitutiona

l viola t ion. AFFIRM E D.

3