Court Opinion

ID: 9556804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 18:01:08.556627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:18.112844
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KYLE PETERSEN,                                  No. 22-15362

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00138-DAD-EPG

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY SIMS, Jr., HSI Agent;
NICHOLAS TORRES, HSI Agent,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Kyle Petersen appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that warrantless searches conducted after his parole

revocation of cell phones seized during earlier parole searches violated the Fourth

Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of qualified

immunity. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir.

2021). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Petersen’s action on the basis of

qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established

constitutional rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)

(government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation

of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established”

at the time of the alleged violation); see also District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.

Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (explaining that “clearly established” means that the

constitutional question was “beyond debate,” such that every reasonable official

would understand that what he is doing is unlawful).

      We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-15362