N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TONY D. PENW E LL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R OB IN C L EAR

Y, De te c tive , B urie n Polic e De pt; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-36075 D.C . No. 2:05-c v-00831-JLR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 13, 2016 ** B e fore : FARRIS, TALLM AN, a n d B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. Tony D. Pe nwe ll a

ppe a ls pro se 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 va rious fe de ra l c la im s arising out of his arre st a nd tra nsfe r to ja il. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e 

# FIL ED APR 21 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w de novo. Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ba s is supporte d by

the re c ord. Enlow

v . Sale m-K

e ize r Ye llow C ab C o., Inc . , 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Pe nwe ll’ s due proc e s s c la im s a lle ging dep rivation of prope rty be c a use Pe nwe ll ha d

an a de quate postdepriva

tion re m e dy

unde r W a shington la

w. Se e Hudson v . Palme r , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“ [A] n una uthoriz e d inte ntiona l de priva tion of prope rty

by a sta te e m ploy e e doe s not c onstitute a viola tion of theproc e dura l re quire m e n ts of the Due Proc e s s C la

use of the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt if a m e aningful postde p rivation re m e dy for the loss is a

va i la ble . ” ); W right v . Riv e land, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th C ir. 2000) (c onc luding tha

t W a shington provide s a de quate postdepriva tion re m e die s). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Pe nwe ll’ s c la im s re ga rding la c k of priva c y

be c a use Pe nwe ll fa ile d to ra ise a ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r any fe m a l e offic e rs or inm ate s sa w him nak e d. Se e N e lson v . Pima C

mty . C oll. , 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ [M ] e re a lle gation a

nd spe c ulation do not cre ate a fa c tua l disputefor purpose s of sum m ary judgm e nt.” ). To the e xte nt tha

t Pe nw e ll c ha lle nge s the e x e c ution of these arc h wa rrant or his a rre st, his c la im s a

re He c k -barre d be c a

use suc c e ss on thec la im s would 1 4 - 3 6 0 7 5 2ne c e ssa

rily im ply the inva lidity

of his c rim i na l c onvic tion, a nd Pe nwe ll ha s fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t his c onvic tion ha s be e n inva lida te d. S e e He c k v . Humphre

y , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (if “ a judgm e nt in fa

vor of the pla i ntiff would ne c e ssa

rily im ply the inva l idity

of his c onvic tion or se nte nc e . . . the c om pla i nt m ust be dism isse d unle ss the pla intiff c an de m onstra te tha t the c onvic tion or se n te nc e ha s a lre a dy be e n inva lida

te d” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

striking Pe nwe l l’ s m otion for le ave to a

m e nd his c o m

pla int be c a

use am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile . Se e N ursev . Unite d

State s , 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th C ir. 2000) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re v ie w for distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to strike m atte r pursua

nt to Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(f)); se e also J

ohnson v . Buc k

le y , 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th C i r. 2004) (distric t c ourt m ay de ny m otion to a

m e nd ba se d on futility

of am e n dm e nt). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e n ts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 6 0 7 5 3