N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

DONALD G. R OB ER T SON a nd C OLLEEN F. R OB ER T SON,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,

v. FER R Y C OUNTY, a

m unic ipa l c orpora tion; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-35561 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00117-R M P

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R osa n na M a louf Pe te rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 28, 2017 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS a n d M c KEOW N , C irc uit Judge s , a

nd R OTHSTEIN, *** Distric t Judge

. 

# F IL ED

SEP 06 2017
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 i s not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is s uita ble for de ci s i o n w i t h o ut ora l a rgum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble B a rba ra Ja c obs R oth s t ei n , Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa t ion.Dona ld a nd C olle e n R obe rtson (“ the R obe rtsons” ) a ppe a l the a dve rse sum

m a ry judgm e nt gra nt i n the ir 42 U.S.C

. § 1983 a nd sta te la w a c tion. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm

. 1. The R o be rtsons ha ve no t m a d e a “ substa ntia l showing” tha t De puty Ta lon Ve nturo “ de l ibe ra te ly or re c kle ssly m a de fa lse sta te m e nts or om i ssions” in the wa rra nt

a pplic a tion to se a

rc h t he ir re side nc e . Ew ing v . C ity of Stoc k

ton , 588 F.3d 1 218, 1223 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita

tion om itte d). Ac c o rdingly , the re wa s no e rror in gra nting

sum m a ry judgm e nt to De puty

Ve nturo. Additiona lly , to the e xte nt the R obe r t s o n s a rgue the se a rc h w a rra nt did not

sa tisfy the Fourth Am e ndm e nt’ s pa rtic ula rity re quire m e nt, De puty V e nturo i s e ntitle d
to qua l ifie d im

m unity

. Se e K

RL v . Estate of Moore , 512 F.3d 118 4, 1189 (9th C ir. 2008). 2. T he Ro ber t s on s ’ re que st, m a de for t he first tim e o n a

ppe a l, to a

m en d t h ei r ple a dings t o a d d De p u ty John Lofts a s a d e fe nda nt in the c a se ha s be e n wa ive d be c a use the R obe rtsons did not se e k le a ve to a m e nd be fore t he distric t c ourt. Se e Alask a v . Unite d State

s , 2 0 1 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th C ir. 2000). M ore ove r, the R obe rtsons ha ve not shown “ good c a use ” unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of Ci v i l Proc e dure 1 6 for the i r fa ilure to c om

ply wit h t h e d i s tric t c ourt’ s s c he duling orde r de a dline s.

2Ac c ordingly , the re wa s no e rror in gra nt i n g s u m m a ry judgm e nt o n t he R o be rtsons’

c la im tha t De puty Lofts a ssa

ulte d C olle e n R obe rtson. 3. The R obe rtsons h a ve not a dduc e d suffic ie nt e vide nc e c re a ting t ria ble issue s of fa c t a s to She riff Pe te W a rne r’ s supe rvisoria l lia bility o r Fe rry C ounty a nd the Fe rry C ounty She riff’ s De pa

rtm e nt’ s m

unic ipa l l ia

bility

. S e e B l a n kenhorn v . C

ity of Orange , 485 F.3d 463, 485 (9th C i r. 2007) (disc ussing supe rvisoria l lia bility ); Mone l l

v . De p ’t of Soc

. Ser vs . o

f N .Y. , 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (disc ussing m unic ipa l lia

bility )

. Ac c ordingly , the re wa s no e rror in gra nting sum m a ry jud g m e nt to the se de fe nda n ts. 4. The R obe rtsons’ c la im tha t se a rc hing the i r re side nc e wa s i m p r o p er b ecau se Was h i n g t o n sta

t e a uthoriz e d t

he ir use of m e d ic ina l m a rijua n a fa ils. At the tim e she ri f f’ s de putie s se a rc he d the ir re side nc e , W a shington la w only provide d a n

a ffirm a tive de fe nse to c ha rge s of viola

tion s o f s t ate la

w re l a ting to m a rijua

na . State

v. R ei s , 351 P.3d 127, 131 (W a sh. 2 015). Suc h a n a ffirm a t ive de fe nse “ doe s n o t unde rm ine proba

ble c a use for a se a rc h wa

rra nt.” Id. a t 136. Ac c ordingly , the re wa s

no e rror in gra

nting sum m a ry judgm e nt on this c la i m . AFFIRM E D.

3