Case Name: Andre ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Oscar DOMINGUEZ, Individual And A Police Officer Of The Long Beach Police Department, Official Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-04
Citations: 670 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 14-56688
Parties: Andre ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Oscar DOMINGUEZ, Individual And A Police Officer Of The Long Beach Police Department, Official Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Andre ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Oscar DOMINGUEZ, Individual And A Police Officer Of The Long Beach Police Department, Official Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56688
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 04, 2016
Andre Andrews, Pro Se
Theodore B. Zinger, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Long Beach City Attorney’s Office, Long Beach, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, 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
Andre Andrews appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Andrews failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his encounter with defendant Dominguez rose to the level of a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that no seizure occurred when officer parked behind an individual in a parked car without lights or sirens; approached the car on foot; did not draw or touch a weapon; and engaged in brief, cordial, and courteous questioning); see also Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (officers can question individuals, ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage even without basis for suspecting a particular individual).
Andrews' argument that the district court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to him is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.