FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND C. FOSS, No. 11-16129
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01791-CTB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE; REDDING POLICE
DEPARTMENT; TODD ROWEN,
Officer; FORT MILL POLICE
DEPARTMENT; CHARLES
ROBINSON, Lieutenant; WILKINS,
Officer; LUCAS, Sergeant; IRVIN; L.
DAN MALPHRUS, Jr., Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Carlos T. BEA, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 14, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Raymond Foss appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims at the
screening stage under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, for
failure to state a claim. We must determine whether Foss’s complaint, “taking all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, [] contains enough facts to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009))). Because Foss was
pro se before the district court, we “construe the pleadings liberally and [] afford
the [plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt.’” Id. at 342.
1. Although Foss admits that he signed a waiver of extradition, he claims
that the waiver was not “knowing and voluntary” and therefore invalid. Moran v.
Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986). Even assuming that the waiver was invalid,
Foss cannot state a claim for relief against any defendants for actions taken after
he signed it, as the waiver was facially valid. Mills v. Graves, 930 F.2d 729, 732
(9th Cir. 1991); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987).
2. Foss also appeals the dismissal of claims against Officer Rowen, the
California officer who requested his detention, and Lieutenant Robinson the South
Carolina officer who obtained the fugitive arrest warrant. He cannot state a
plausible claim for relief, however, because it is undisputed that the California
warrant had been issued before Rowen contacted Robinson. Both California and
2
South Carolina law permit an officer to request the arrest of a fugitive on the basis
of an outstanding arrest warrant and before the issuance of a formal extradition
demand. Cal. Pen. Code § 1551.1; S.C. Code § 17-9-10. Robinson listed the
California arrest warrant number in the affidavit and conducted an NCIC check
earlier that day. The warrant number alone would likely establish probable cause
for a fugitive arrest warrant. The NCIC check would also have been sufficient to
obtain a fugitive arrest warrant. Case v. Kitsap Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 249 F.3d
921, 928 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3