FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRE ANDREWS, No. 14-56688
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-08263-MWF-
VBK
v.
OSCAR DOMINGUEZ, Individual and a MEMORANDUM*
police officer of the Long Beach Police
Department, official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Andre Andrews appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unlawful seizure in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo. Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Andrews
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his encounter with
defendant Dominguez rose to the level of a seizure for purposes of the Fourth
Amendment. See United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 2007)
(concluding that no seizure occurred when officer parked behind an individual in a
parked car without lights or sirens; approached the car on foot; did not draw or
touch a weapon; and engaged in brief, cordial, and courteous questioning); see also
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991) (officers can question individuals,
ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage even without basis for
suspecting a particular individual).
Andrews’ argument that the district court did not view the evidence in the
light most favorable to him is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-56688