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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c 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 a r 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 C H R I S T O P H E R H . H A N S E N ; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. J O S H U A N I E V E S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16941 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 -cv -0 0 4 7 9 -JC M -R JJ 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 J a m e s C . M a ha n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Ch r i s t o p h e rH . H a n s e n , D a w n E. H a n s e n , J o s h u aH a n s e n , a n d W h i tn e y F. H a ns e n appe a l pr o s e f

r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e nti n the i r42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on ar i si ng fr om an em er gency r es po nse t o a di sturbance betw ee n 

# FI LED SEP 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16941 2 th e H a n s e n s a n d th e irn e ig h b o r . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re vi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm ent , and w e m ayaf fi rm o n a n y g r o u n d s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d . Morelan d v. L as V egas Metro. P ol i ce D ep’t , 1 5 9 F. 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en to n th e H an sen s’ F ou rth A m endm entcl ai m s a ri si ng ou tof thei r det ent i on because the H anse ns fa i l ed to 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 o f

f ic e r s h a d r e a s o n to b e lie v e th a t a n a s s au lt w ith ad e a d ly w e ap o n m a y h a v e o c c u rr e d . See T erryv. O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 , 3 0 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . F u r th e r , th e H a n s e n s f a ile d to r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te a s t o w he the rthe l e ngth of the i rde t e nt i on vi ol a t e d the F our th A m e ndm e ntor N e v a d ala w . See U

ni ted Stat es v. T

orres- Sa nchez , 83 F . 3d 11 23 , 11 28 -29 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ; s e e al

s o N ev. R ev. S t at . § 1 71 . 12 3(4) (a n i nd i vi du al “ m ustno tbe det ai ned l onge rtha n i s ne c e s s a ry t o e f f e c tthe purpos e s of

[ the i nve s t i ga t i on] a nd i n no eventl on ger than 6 0 m i nu t es ”) . Su mma ry j u d g me n tw a s p r o p e ro n Ch r i s t o p h e r ’ s Fo u r th A me n d me n tc l a i ms a r is in g o u t o f

th e p a t- d o w n s e a r c h . Se e Y b a r r a v . I

llin o is , 444 U . S . 85, 94 ( 1979) ( of f i c e rm a y c onduc tpa t - dow n s e a r c h ba s e d on r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on tha tthe p e r s o n to b e s e a r c h e d m a y h a v e w e ap o n s in h is p o s s e s s io n ) ; se e al so G raha m v. C onnor , 490 U . S . 386, 396 ( 1989) ( di s c us s i ng f a c t or s t o c ons i de ri n de t e rm i ni ng10- 16941 3 re as on abl enes s of f

orce used). S um m ary j ud gm entw as prop eron Joshua’ s c l ai m s ari si ng ou tof the se i zure of hi s unr e gi s t e r e d ha ndgun be c aus e the undi s put e d f a c t s de m ons tr a t e tha tJ os hua w as n o tco erced i n t o g o i n g i n t o th e h o m e an d g ett i n g th e w eap o n , an d th u s d i d so vol unt a r i l y ; a nd tha tthe of f i c e r s ha d r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tJ os huaha d c om m i tt e d a m is d e m e a n o rb y p o s s e s s in g th e u n r e g is te r e d h a n d g u n . See C la rkC o u n ty O r di na nc e §§ 12. 04. 110, 12. 04. 200, 12. 04. 220. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en to n th e cl ai m s ag ai n st L V M P D because there i s no res po nd ea tsuperi or l i abi l i ty a gai nstm un i ci pal i t i es u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 , see Mo n el l v. D ep ’t o f So c. Servs. , 436 U . S . 658, 690- 91 ( 1978) , a nd there i s no evi dence thatany of the defendant s vi ol at ed the H anse ns’ const i tut i on al r ig h ts , se e C i t

y of L os A ng eles v. H

el ler , 47 5 U . S . 79 6, 79 9 (19 86 ). A ny m i s s t a t e m e ntof

the f a c t s by the di s tr i c tc our ti s ha rm l e s s i n l i ghtof our d e n o v o r e v ie w a n d ab ility to a f f irm o n a n y b a s is s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d . See Mor e land , 159 F . 3d a t369. W e do notc ons i de ri s s ue s tha ta r e nots pe c i f i c a l l y a nd di s t i nc t l y r a i s e d a nd a r g u e d in th e o p e n in g b r ie f . See Sm i th v. M

a rsh , 19 4 F . 3d 10 45 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). AF F I RME D.