NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUTH DEMPSEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GIBSON, CM, Deputy, #5165, in his 

individual and official capacity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-16829

D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00243-JR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jacqueline M. Rateau, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 10, 2023

***

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ruth Dempsey appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in 

favor of Deputy Christian Gibson, Deputy Jeffrey ten Elshof, and Sergeant Gosta 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Zetterberg of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department in a civil rights action alleging 

violations of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v. Iwai, 930 F.3d 

1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 2019); Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 756 F.3d 

1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly held that the deputies’ warrantless entry into and 

search of Dempsey’s private room was justified under the emergency aid 

exception. See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding 

officers’ warrantless entry and search is justified if they have an objectively 

reasonable belief that there is an immediate need to protect others or themselves 

from serious harm and the scope and manner of entry and search are reasonable to 

meet that need). The deputies presented “specific and articulable facts” justifying 

their belief that a resident of the assisted-living care home may have needed 

immediate medical assistance. Sandoval, 756 F.3d at 1164 (quoting United States 

v. Ojeda, 276 F.3d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)). The deputies knew that 

there had been recent violence in the care home, the care home was in poor 

condition, the residents appeared to speak only English but the sole caregiver 

present spoke primarily Spanish, and the caregiver and Dempsey had lied to the 

deputies. These undisputed facts, particularly when considering Dempsey’s 

deceptive conduct, provided an objectively reasonable basis to conclude that there 
3 

may have been injured, abused, or neglected residents in the area that Dempsey 

marked private. See Ryburn v. Huff, 565 U.S. 469, 476–77 (2012) (per curiam)

(“[A] combination of events each of which is mundane when viewed in isolation 

may paint an alarming picture.”); Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 (2009) (per 

curiam) (“Officers do not need ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening 

injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)). The scope and manner of the deputies’ search was also 

reasonable: they looked inside Dempsey’s room, saw no one there, and left. See

Snipe, 515 F.3d at 952.

AFFIRMED.