NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAMINA CHRISTINE SHOCK, No. 16-16446
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01261-RFB-CWH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; T. BACHMAN, Pin
#5796,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Tamina Christine Shock appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations related
to a search of her residence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo, Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2013), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shock failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the search warrant was not
supported by probable cause or whether defendants were liable for the execution of
the warrant. See id. (setting forth probable cause standard under the Fourth
Amendment); Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2004)
(explaining that “integral participation” is required for liability under § 1983);
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (setting forth
requirements for municipal liability).
The district court properly dismissed Shock’s Fifth Amendment claim
because Shock did not allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim. See
Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of
review and stating that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause only applies to
the federal government); see also Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194,
1198 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth requirements for stating a claim under the
Takings Clause).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting attorney’s fees to
2 16-16446
defendants. See Transamerica Corp. v. Transamerica Bancgrowth Corp., 627
F.2d 963, 965-66 (9th Cir. 1980) (setting forth standard of review and stating that
sanctions may be imposed for a party’s failure to appear).
We reject as meritless Shock’s contentions that the district court lacked
jurisdiction, including Shock’s contentions regarding her filings for quo warranto
and writ of mandamus.
We reject as meritless Shock’s contentions of judicial misconduct or bias.
We reject as unsupported by the record Shock’s contention that Detective
Gillespie was properly served.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16446