N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NOR W OOD PR IC E, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. M IC HAEL PEER SON; AKAL SEC UR ITY INC .; W ILLIAM W ALLAC E; POTE PIGULSAW AS; STEVEN M C GR

ATH, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55836 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-03390-PSG-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 7, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , M UR GUIA, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAR 22 2016 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Appe lla nt Norwood Pric e a

ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe lle e s M ic ha e l Pe e rson— a U.S. M arsha l— an d thre e C ourthouse Se c urity

Offic e rs (“ C SOs” ), who purporte dly de ta ine d Pric e for
a pproxim ate l y

te n m inute s at a

fe de ra l c ourthouse in Los Ange le s, C a lifornia , a fte r Pric e inquire d a

bout the c o urthouse ’ s polic y of re quiring visitors to re m ove the ir shoe s be fore e nte ring. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we
a ffirm
. As a pre lim ina

ry m atte r, Pric e ha s m ove d

to strikeportions of one

of the
answe ring brie fs a s irre le va n t and pre judic ia l. W e disfa

vor m otions to strike , a

nd Pric e offe rs no a

uthority in support of the

re lie f he se e ks. Ac c ordingly , his m otion to strikeis de nie d. On the m e rits, the distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt on Pric e ’ s c la im s unde r Biv e ns v . Six Unk now n N ame d Age n ts of Fe d. Bure a u of N arc otic s , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pric e ha s fa ile d to de m onstra te the e xiste nc e of a ge nuine i ssue of m ate ria l fa c t re ga rding whe t

he r any of the de fe n da

nts-a ppe lle e s viola te d his First or Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights. The undispute d e vide nc e
e sta blishe s tha

t the C SOs’ brie f c onve rsation with Pric e wa s not a “ se iz ure ” within the m e aning of theFourth Am e ndm e nt be c a u se a re a sona ble pe rson in Pric e ’ s position would ha

ve fe l t fre e to te rm inate the inte ra c tion a nd le ave , se e Unite d 2State

s v . Orman , 486 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th C ir. 2007), a nd nothing in the

re c ord shows tha t the de fe nda

nts-a ppe lle e s inte nde d to inte rfe re with Pric e ’ s First Am e ndm e nt right to file

a grie v anc e a ga i nst the M arsha l
. Se e Me ndoc ino Env tl. C

tr. v . Me ndoc ino C

t y ., 14 F.3d 457, 464 (9th C ir. 1994). Furthe r, be c a

use Pric e fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r any

of the de fe nda

n ts-a ppe lle e s viola

te d his First or Fourth Ame ndm e nt rights, his c la im

unde r C a lifornia ’ s B ane Ac t like w ise fa ils a s a m atte r of la

w. Se e C ame ron v . C

raig , 713 F.3d 1012, 1022 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [The B an e Ac t] doe s not provide any

substa ntive prote c tions; inste a d, it e na ble s individual s to sue for dam a ge s a s a re s ult of c onstitutiona l viola t ions.” (quoting in pa

re nthe tic a l R e

y nolds
v . C ty . of San Die

go , 84 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th C i r. 1996), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Ac r i v
. Varian Assoc s., Inc ., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th C ir. 1997))). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt wa s within its disc re tion to c onc lude tha

t the U.S. M arsha ls Se rvic e ha d no re a son to be lie ve it ha d a duty to pre s e rve c ourthouse
se c urity ta pe s of Pric e ’ s visit to the

M a rsha l’ s Offic e , whic h a

re ordina rily
re c o rde d ove r e ve ry

thirty da y s. The re wa s no e vide nc e tha t the vide os we re inte ntiona lly

de stroy e d, nor did futurelitiga tion a rising out of the

inc ide nt with Pric e a ppe ar like ly

until ne arly

a y e ar a fte r the re c ordings we re e ra se d
. Se e Unite d State s v . K itsap Phy sic i ans Se rv ., 314 F.3d 995, 1001 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ De fe nda nts 3e nga ge in spolia t ion of doc um e nts a s a

m atte r of la

w only if the y ha d ‘ som e notic e that the doc um e nts we re pote ntia lly re le va nt’ to the litiga

tion be fore the y

we re de stroy e d.” (c ita

tion omi tte d)). AFFIRM E D.

4