Court Opinion

ID: 9366401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 18:01:46.881551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.922940
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,                            No. 21-56062

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01360-LAB-MSB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

NATIONAL CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

                Defendant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Keith Wayne Sekerke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

      *
             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).
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of property in violation

of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Sekerke’s action because Sekerke

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a meaningful post-deprivation remedy

was unavailable to him. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-33 (1984)

(neither negligent nor intentional deprivations of property constitute a due process

violation if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Barnett v. Centoni,

31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-

deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

      We reject as unpersuasive Sekerke’s contention that he may not have a

meaningful post-deprivation remedy based on the hypothetical application of

unspecified state law immunity.

      We do not consider Sekerke’s Fourth Amendment claim because Sekerke

failed to replead it in his operative complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693

F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (claims dismissed with leave to amend are

waived if not repled).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

                                          2                                   21-56062
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

      Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 23) is granted. All

other requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                       21-56062