Case Name: Cynthia Louise BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. County of ORANGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-17
Citations: 504 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 11-55897
Parties: Cynthia Louise BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. County of ORANGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 504
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Cynthia Louise BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. County of ORANGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-55897.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 17, 2013.
Cynthia Louise Brown, Orange, CA, pro se.
Daniel Solomon Cha, Zaynah Moussa, Esquire, Christina Marie Sprenger, Esquire, Senior Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC, Santa Ana, CA, David Duane Lawrence, I, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC, Glendale, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cynthia Louise Brown appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when defendants searched her home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), Honey v. Distelrath, 195 F.3d 531, 533 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Brown's action because the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars her from relitigating the Fourth Amendment issues previously decided during her prior criminal proceeding. See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270-72 (9th Cir.1990) (applying California law to give preclusive effect to Fourth Amendment determinations made during a suppression hearing). Contrary to Brown's contention, Brown had the opportunity to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress .and she failed to do so. See Rodriguez v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.3d 1453, 245 Cal.Rptr. 617, 620 (1988) (holding that defendants may appeal a denial of a motion to suppress so long as the initial motion was filed within the deadline provided by Cal.Penal Code § 1510).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.