FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN WOFFORD, No. 16-56840
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01052-GW-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER BRACKS, Peace Officer;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sean Wofford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
detention and arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922,
925 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wofford’s Fourth Amendment claims
because Wofford failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants lacked
reasonable suspicion for his detention or probable cause for his arrest. See Arizona
v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009) (a search of an arrestee’s person is lawful
incident to arrest); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 30-31 (1968) (an initial detention
is reasonable when officers have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed
a crime); Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 1990) (probable cause
requirement for a warrantless arrest); see also United States v. Cook, 808 F.3d
1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a search of a defendant’s backpack was
reasonable and valid incident to arrest); United States v. Brooks, 367 F.3d 1128,
1134 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We look at the total circumstances known to the officer to
determine whether probable cause existed.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wofford’s motion
for relief from judgment because Wofford failed to demonstrate any basis for relief
from the judgment. See Foley v. Biter, 793 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015)
(standard of review).
2 16-56840
We reject as unsupported by the record Wofford’s contentions concerning
bias of the district court.
Wofford’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-56840