N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SER GEI POR TNOY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF W OODLAND; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16384 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01720-GEB EFB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Garland E. B urre ll, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Se rge i Portnoy

a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a nd sta te la w viola tions a rising from his a rre st a t his hom e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Ande rson v . W

arne r , 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th C ir. 2006). W e a ffirm . 

# F IL ED MAY27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Portnoy ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im s re late d to his a rre st, be c a

use Portnoy fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he gave c onse nt to de fe n da nts to e nte r his hom e , whe the r de fe n da

nts ha d proba

ble c a use to a rre st him for fra udule ntly c a shing a c he c k with insuffic ie nt funds, a n d whe t he r the prote c tive swe e p wa s justifie d ba se d on a re a sona b le suspic ion of da

nge r. Se e E

s pinosa v . C

ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th C ir. 2010) (c o nse nt is a n e xc e ption to the Fourth Am e ndm e nt ’ s wa

rrant re quire m e nt); Blank e nhorn v . C

ity of Orange , 485 F.3d 463, 471 (9th C ir. 2007) (wa rrantle ss a

rre st pe rm i ssiblewhe re proba b le c a u se e xists); C a l. Pe na l C ode § 476a (a ) (any pe rson who willfully

m a k e s or de live rs a c he c k with knowle dge tha t it ha s insuffic ie nt funds is subje c t to im prisonm e nt of up to oney e ar); M

ary land v . Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 334-36 (1990) (prote c tive swe e p pe rm issiblefor the prote c tion of thearre sting offic e rs). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Portnoy ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im

re late d to his proba

ble c a use de te rm ination, be c a

u se Portnoy fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the nam e d de fe nda nts we re involve d in or ha d c ontrol of this dete rm ination. Se eC ounty of Riv e rside v . Mc Laughlin , 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991) (re quiring judic ia l de te rm ination of proba ble c a use within 48 hours of a

wa rrantle ss a

rre st). 1 3 - 1 6 3 8 4 2The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Portnoy ’ s e m otiona l distre ss c la im s be c a use Portnoy fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts a c te d re a sona

bly . Se eC

orale s v . Be nne tt , 567 F.3d 554, 571 (9th C ir. 2009) (e le m e nts of a n inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss c la im ); Fluharty v . Fluharty , 69 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 244, 246-47 (C t. App. 1997) (e le m e nts of a ne glige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss c la im ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Portnoy ’ s Hum an R ights Ac t c l a im , a ssa

u l t c la im , a

nd tre spa ss c la im

be c a use Portnoy

fa ile d to ide ntify any la w or fa c t s to support the se c la im s. W e re je c t Portnoy ’ s Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt fa m ilia l re lations c la im . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Portnoy ’ s c la im s a s to theC ity

of W oodla

n d be c a use Portnoy

fa ile d to de m onstra

te that the gove rnm e nt ha d

a de libe rate polic y , c ustom , or pra c tic e tha t wa s the m o ving forc e be hind a ny a lle ge d c o nstitutiona

l viola tion. Se eMone ll v . De

p’t of Soc . Se rv

s. , 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 986 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 3 8 4 3