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 OUNTY OF YOLO; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17321 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00314-JAM KJN 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 J ohn A. M e nde z , 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 judgm e nt dismissing 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 de te ntion in c ounty

ja il. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e r e v i e w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l . Se e K n ie v e l v . ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 

# 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1072 (9th C ir. 2005) (R ule 1 2 (b)(6)); Huftile v . Mic c io-Fonse c a , 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th C ir. 2005) (§ 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii)). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Portnoy ’ s sta

te la w c la i m s be c a

use Portnoy fa ile d to c om

ply with theC a lifornia Tort C la im s Ac t. Se eC a l. Gov’ t C ode § 945.4 (c la im s pre se ntm e nt is ne c e s sa ry be fore suing public

e ntitie s ); id. § 950.2 (if a c tion a ga inst publice ntity is ba rre d unde r the c ha

pte r be ginning with § 945, a c tion a ga i nst publice m ploy e e is a lso ba

rre d); se ealso Shirk

v . Vista Unifie d Sc h. Dist. 164 P.3d 630, 634 (C a l. 2007) (tim e ly c la i m s pre se ntation is a c ondition pre c e de nt to, a

nd a n e le m e nt of, a

ny c la i m a g a i nst a public e ntity

or its e m ploy e e s). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Portnoy ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im re late d to his a

rre st, be c a

use the issue s ha d be e n pre viously litiga te d by Portnoy and we re ne c e ssa

ry to theprior sum

m ary judgm e nt. Se eMc Quillion v. Sc hw arze ne

gge r , 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2004) (re quire m e nts for c olla te ra l e stoppe l). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Portnoy ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im re late d to his proba

ble c a use de te rm inat ion, be c a

u s e the de fe nda

nts we re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity ba se d on a re a sona ble be lie f tha

t a judge ha d m a d e a

positive finding of proba

ble c a use within 48 hours of a

rre st. Se ePe arson v . C

allahan , 555

1 3 - 1 7 3 2 1 2U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (re a sona b le m ista ke s of la w or fa c t prote c te d by

qua lifie d im m unity); se ealso C

ounty of Riv e rside v . Mc

Laughlin , 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991) (c onc l uding judic ia l de te rm ination of proba b le c a u se within 48 hours of a warrantle ss a

rre st is ne c e ssa

ry ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Portnoy ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im c ha lle nging thetim e line ss of his re le a se , be c a use he fa ile d to a lle ge tha t a ny de la y wa s c a use d by de libe rate indiffe re nc e or a nything other tha

n a dm inistra

tive proc e d ure s. Se eBrass v . C

ounty of Los Ange le

s , 328 F.3d 1192, 1194, 1202 (9th C ir. 2003) (no c onstitutiona l viola tion whe re 39-hour de la

y in re le a s ing the arre ste e a fte r a

c ourt orde r wa s attributa

ble to a dm i nistra

tive proc e dure s); Be rry

v . Bac a , 379 F.3d 764, 767-69 (9th C ir. 2004) (pla intiff m a y argue de libe rate indiffe re nc e in im

p le m e ntation of a dm inistra tive proc e dure s). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Portnoy ’ s Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt c la im be c a use the de fe nda

nts’ c onduc t did not shock the c onsc ie nc e in light of Portnoy ’ s va lid a

rre st. Se eW

ilk inson v . Torre

s , 610 F.3d 546, 554 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta nda rd for fam ilia l re l ations c la im unde r Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Portnoy ’ s c la im s a s to theC i ty of W oodla n d a nd the C ounty

of Yolo be c a

use he fa i le d to de m onstra te tha t 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

1 3 - 1 7 3 2 1 3be hind thea l le ge d c onstitutiona l viola tion. Se eMone ll v . De

p’t of Soc . Se rv

s. , 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 3 2 1 4