NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN H. TODD, No. 16-36022
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01091-MC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GALE A. McMAHON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John H. Todd appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the
seizure of neglected cats pursuant to a search warrant. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v. Luk, 859 F.2d 667, 670
*
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).
(9th Cir. 1988). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Gordon v.
Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Todd’s Fourth Amendment claim was proper
because Todd failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant McMahon was not authorized to obtain the warrant. See Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 167.345(2) (“[A] peace officer, after obtaining a search warrant . . . may enter the
premises or motor vehicle where the animal is located to provide the animal with
food, water and emergency medical treatment and may impound the animal.”); Or.
Rev. Stat. § 161.015 (defining a “[p]eace officer” as a member of the Oregon State
Police, sheriff, or reserve officer); Or. Rev. Stat. § 204.635 (providing that sheriff
may appoint deputies and may also by special written appointment authorize any
other person to do any particular act).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Todd’s motions for
sanctions and to strike because Todd failed to establish grounds for relief. See
Dunn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 589 F.2d 408, 415 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The
sanctions available to a trial judge under [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] are
discretionary and the imposition of such sanctions will not be reversed unless there
has been an abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-36022