NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR LOPEZ, No. 17-56869
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-02379-VBF-
MRW
v.
CORONA POLICE DEPARTMENT, MEMORANDUM*
official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging unconstitutional seizure of his vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920
*
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).
F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.
The district court denied Lopez’s motion to proceed IFP finding that Lopez
failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim relating to the seizure of his vehicle.
However, Lopez alleged that defendants seized his currently registered vehicle
without a warrant while it was lawfully parked outside his residence. These
allegations are sufficient to state a claim for unreasonable seizure in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. See Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 862 (9th
Cir. 2005) (government bears the burden of showing that a warrantless
impoundment of a vehicle is justified by the community caretaking exception to
the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement).
Lopez’s request for injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 17-56869