N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GUY R OB ER T SODERLIND, Jr., a single individua l, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. UR SULA J. HAIGH,

De fe nda n t,
and KING C OUNTY; JOHN C . HOLLAND, King C ounty

She riff’ s De puty , individua lly

and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity ; ER IN M . GAR SKE, King C ounty She riff’ s De puty , individually and in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity ; M IKE C
. M ANSANAREZ, King C ounty She riff’ s De puty , individual ly

and in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35649 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01655-R SL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington 

# FIL ED
DEC 12 2019 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.R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 5, 2019 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : R

AW LINSON, B EA, a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt Guy R o be rt Sode rlind (Sode rlind) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs gra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe lle e s King C ounty (C ounty )
and De puty

John Holla

nd, De puty

Erin Ga rske , a n d De puty

M ike M ansa

ne re z of the K ing C ounty

She riff’ s Offic e , a

nd de ny ing Sode rlind’ s m o tions for sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd to a m e n d the judgm e nt. Sode rlind a lle ge d tha

t t he offic e rs unla

wfully arre ste d him

for viola ting
anti-ha ra ssm e nt orde rs. Howe v e r, the distric t c o urt c orre c tly he l d tha t the inve stiga ting offic e r’ s inte rpre t a tion of the pla in la ngua ge of the anti-ha

ra ssm e nt orde rs wa s re a s ona

ble , the re by e sta

blishing proba

ble c a use for Sode rlind’ s arre st. Se e R e e d v . Lie uranc e , 863 F.3d 1196, 1204 (9th C ir. 2017) (e xpla ining tha t

“ [p] roba ble c a use e xists whe n the fa c ts a nd c irc um sta

nc e s within a

n offic e r’ s knowle dge are suffic i e nt for a re a sona bly prude nt pe rson to be lie ve tha t the suspe c t ha s c om m itte d a c rim e ” ) (c ita

tion, a lte ra tion, a

n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d). 1

1 C ontra ry to Sode rlind’ s a sse rtions, thedistric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of the anti-ha ra ssm e nt orde rs did not c onflic t with its gra

nt of pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt (c ontinue d...) 2B a se d on his inde p e nde nt re v ie w of the an ti-ha ra ssm e nt orde rs, witne ss sta te m e nts, vide os, a

nd im a ge s, the inve s tiga

ting offic e r did not “ sole ly re ly ” on the n e ighbors’ c om

pla ints, a nd he prope rly

de te rm ine d tha

t the re wa s proba

ble
c a use to a rre s t Sode rlind. Pe ng v . Me i C hin Pe nghu , 335 F.3d 970, 978 (9th C ir. 2003). The distric t c ourt a p propria te ly a pplie d the c olle c tive knowle d ge doc trine to
c onc lude tha

t proba ble c a u se e xiste d to a

rre st Sode rlind. Se e G arc ia v . C ounty of Me rc e d , 639 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th C ir. 2011) (noting tha t “ [w] h e n the re ha s be e n
c om m unic a tion a

m ong a g e nts, proba

ble c a use c an re st upon the

inve stiga ting
a ge nts’ c o lle c tive knowle dge ” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 2

1 (...c ontinue d) in fa vor of the C ity

of B urie n. In gra

n ting pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt, the distric t c ourt e m p ha siz e d tha t “ [w] he re the pre c ise bounda rie s of this right-of-wa

y lie , a nd whe the r M r. Sode rlind wa s within those bounda rie s whe n he a lle ge dly

wa lke d on the t ide la nd in front of his ne i ghbors’ hom e s, [we re ] que stions not be fore the C ourt.”

2 Be ie r v . C

ity of Le w iston , 354 F.3d 1058 (9th C i r. 2004), re lie d on by Sode rlind, is ina

pposite
. In tha

t c a se , ne ithe r of the arre sting offic e rs re a d the re stra i ning orde r prior to a rre sting thepla intiff, a

nd the y we re una ble to re nde r a re a s ona ble proba ble c a use de t e rm ination be c a

use the re wa s “ sim

ply no via ble re a d ing of the orde r pursua nt to whic h

[the pla intiff] wa s in viola tion.” Id. at 1062- 63, 1068. W e a lso obse rve d t hat “ [a ] polic e offic e r who doe s not pe rsona lly re a d, suc h an orde r . . . m ay

fulfill his duty

by obta ining inform a tion from a uthoriz e d pe rsonne l— suc h a s a supe rvisor or polic e dispa t c he r— w ho ha ve a c c e ss to the te rm s of the orde r.” Id. at 1069. 3The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t Sode rlind wa s not unla

wfully arre ste d in the c urtila g e of his re s ide nc e be c a use his drive way

wa s e xpose d to publicvie w
and use d for stora ge and othe r non-priva te a c tivitie s. Se e Unite d State s v . Pe re aRe y , 680 F.3d 1179, 1184 (9th C ir. 2012) (sta ting tha t “ [w] e e x am ine four
non-e x ha ustive fa c t ors to de te rm ine whe the r an a re a is pa rt of a hom e ’ s c urtila ge : the p roxim ity

of the are a

c la im e d to be c urtila g e to the hom e , whe the r the are a is inc l ude d within a

n e nc losure surrounding the hom e , the nature of the use s to whic h the a re a is put, a nd the ste ps ta

ke n by the re side nt to prote c t the are a from obse rva tion by

pe ople pa ssing by ” ) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks
om i tte d). The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Sode rlind’ s m otion to a m e nd the judgm e nt pre m ise d on C

ollins v . Virginia , 138 S. C t. 1663 (2018). In C ollins , the Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t a n offic e r who sa

wa pa rke d ve hic le
c ove re d by

a ta rp, “ wa lke d onto there side ntia l prope rty and up to the

top of the drive way ,” and “ pulle d off the ta rp, re ve a ling a

m otorc y c le tha

t looke d like the one from [a ] spe e ding inc ide n t,” e nte re d the c urtila ge of the re side nc e to c onduc t the
se arc h. Id. at 1668, 1671. Sode rlind’ s a rre st in his drive

way did not oc c ur in a pla c e with simila

r priva c y fe a ture s. Se eid.

4Dism issa l of Sode rlind’ s fa lse arre st, m a lic ious prose c ution, a nd First Am e ndm e nt c la im s wa s wa rra nte d ba se d on the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the o ffic e rs ha d proba

ble c a use to a rre st Sode rlind for viola

ting thean ti-ha

ra ssm e nt orde rs, a nd the offic e rs did not otherwise infringe on Sode rlind’ s First Am e ndm e nt rights. B e c a

use Sode rlind fa i l e d to de m o nstra te the re quisite c onstitutiona l viola tions in support of his c la im s unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983, thedistric t c ourt prope rly e nte re d judgm e nt in fa

vor of the C ounty . Se eJ

ohnson v . C

ity of Se attle , 474 F.3d 634, 638 (9th C ir. 2007) (c la rify ing tha

t “ m unic ipa litie s a

re only lia ble unde r Se c tion 1983 if the re is, a t m inim um , a n unde rly ing c onstitutiona l tort” ) (c ita tion om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

5