N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OY’ LAND RIC E, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. EL C ERR ITO POLIC E DEPAR TM ENT, ET AL, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15963 D.C . No. 5-11-c v -06295-EJD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge , a nd EZR A,** Distric t Judge
. R oy ’ la nd R ic e a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging Fourth a nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt viola tions 

# FIL ED NOV 30 2016 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 Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.arising out of the im pounding of his ve

hic le for e xpire d re g istra

tion ta gs. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, a nd m a y a ffirm on a

ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Miranda v

. C ity of C orne lius , 429 F.3d 858, 860 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ri c e ’ s proc e dura l due proc e ss c la im s be c a

use R ic e fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he posse sse d a c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d prope rty

inte re s t in the im pounde d ve hic le
. S

e e Llamas v

. Butte

C mty . C oll. Dist. , 238 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ The Fourte e nth Am e ndm e n t’ s gua rante e of proc e dura l due proc e s s a pplie s whe n a

c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d prope rty

or libe rty inte re s t is a

t sta ke .” ); se e also Sc ofie ld v . C i ty of Hillsborough , 862 F.2d 759, 762–65 (9th C i r. 1988) (holding tha

t pre -tow notic e and he aring a re not re quire d be fore im

p ounding
a ve h ic le with e xpire d re gistra tion). On the

re c ord be fore us, it is im

possibleto de te rm i ne what i nte re st, if a ny , R i c e ha d in the ve hic le . What is c e rta in is tha t he
wa s ne ithe r its re giste re d nor its le ga l owne r unde r C a lifornia la w. Furthe r, Se ide ll Ente rprise s did provide

a c tua l notic e to R ic e ’ s la st a ssoc iate d a ddre ss. To the e xte nt it wa s prope rly ra ise d , dism issa l of R ic e ’ s Fourth Am e n dm e nt
c la im wa s prope r be c a

use R ic e fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t the
se arc h a nd se iz ure we re unla

wful. Se e , e .g. , South Dak

ota v . Oppe rman , 428 U.S.

- 2-364, 368–69 (1976); Hallstrom v . C ity of Garde n C

i ty , 991 F.2d 1473, 1477, n.4 (9th C ir. 1993). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Ri c e ’ s m otion to join Se ide ll Ente rprise s, Inc ., a s a de fe nda nt . Se e C le me nt v . C

ity of Gle ndale , 518 F.3d 1090, 1096–97 (9th C ir. 2008) (priva te towing c om

pa ny e ntitle d to “ good fa ith” d e fe nse be c a

use a ut horiz e d by

polic e de pa

rtm e nt a nd c onstitutiona

l de fe c t/la c k of notic e c ould not ha ve be e n known a

t tim e ). AFFIRM E D
.

- 3-