T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AS ON E R I C S ON NT AG , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D E N N I S B A L A A M ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16149 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 7 -cv -0 0 3 1 1 -R C JR AM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC l i ve J one s , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Ja son E ri c S on nt ag appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tde f e nda nt s us e d e xc e s s i ve f o r c e a g a in s t h im a n dv io la te dh is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b ys ub je c tin g h im to as tr ip 

# FI LED NO V 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16149 2 s e a r c h w hi l e he w a s apr e tr i a l de t a i ne e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . G i bson v. C ou nt y of W asho e, N ev . , 290 F . 3d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e a f f irm . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n S o n n tag ’s exce ss i ve force cl ai m because S on nt ag fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al f a c ta s t o w he the rthe f

or c e us e d t o tr ans f

e rhi m t o a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e gr e ga t i on and th e th r e a te n e du s e o f

ata s e rw e r e u n r e a s o n ab le o ra m o u n te dto p u n is h m e n t. See id. a t1197 ( F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e ntpr ot e c t s apr e tr i a l de t a i ne e f r om e xc e s s i ve f o r c e th a t is u n r e a s o n ab le o ra m o u n ts to p u n is h m e n t) ; s e e al s o B y rd v . M ar i c opa Cnt y. Sh er i f f’s D ep’t . , 629 F . 3d 1135, 1140 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( e n banc ) ( s e ar c h of p r e tr ia l d e ta in e e du e to s e c u r ityc o n c e rn s , in c lu d in g s u s p ic io n o f c o n tr ab an d , d id notvi ol a t e due pr oc e s s be c aus e i tw a s r e l a t e d t o l e gi t i m a t e goa l s a nd w a s not in te n d e dto p u n is h ) ; Mi tchenf elder v . Su m ner , 86 0 F . 2d 32 8, 33 4-36 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( up ho l di ng threa t ened use of a t as erby pri son o ff i ci al s a s am eans t o ensure com pl i ance w i th a se ar ch). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r an te ds u m m aryju d g m e n t o n S o n n ta g ’s s tr ip s e a r c h c la im b e c au s e S o n n ta g f a ile dto r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rth e s e a r c h w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . See B yrd , 629 F . 3d a t1141 ( out l i ni ng f a c to r s f o rd e te rm in in g w h e th e rs e ar c h w a s r e a s o n ab le ) ; Mi tchenf elder , 86 0 F . 2d at11- 16149 3 3 3 2 - 3 3 ( up h o ld in g th e u s e o f r o u tin e s tr ip s e ar c h p r o c e du r e s ) ; se e al so T aylor v. L ist , 8 8 0 F .2 d1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( th e n o n m o v in g p artyc an n o t a v o id s um m a ryj udgm e ntby“ r e l y i ng s ol e l yon c onc l us orya l l e ga t i ons uns upport e d by f a c tu a l d a ta ” ) . W e d o n o t c o n s id e ris s u e s n o t s p e c if ic a llya n dd is tin c tlyr a is e da n da r g u e din th e o p e n i n g b r i e f

, i n c l u d i n g th e d i s mi s s a l w i th p r e j u d i c e o f So n n t a g ’ s c l a i ms r e l a t i ng t o w r ongf

ul a rr e s t , m a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on, a nd c ha l l e ngi ng the c ondi t i ons o f h is c o n f in e m e n t. See Sm i th v. M a rsh , 1 9 4 F .3 d1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . S onnt a g’ s c ont e nt i on tha tatw e nty - f i ve hourpl a c e m e nti n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e g r e g a tio n w ith o u t ah e a r in g v io la te dh is du e p r o c e s s r ig h ts is u n p e r s u a s iv e . See Cato v. R ushen , 824 F . 2d 703, 705 ( 9th C i r . 1987) ( i ti s notunr e a s onabl e f orpr i s on a dm i ni s tr a t or s t o tr a ns f

e ri nm a t e s t e m por ar i l yt o gr e a t e rs e c ur i tyr e gi ons pe ndi ng a n in v e s tig a tio n ) . A FFI R M ED .