Perez v. Moreland

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 23, 2025·No. 24-129·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LISA MARIE PEREZ, FKA Lisa Marie No. 24-129 Belyew, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Plaintiff - Appellant,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

MORELAND; KORY L. HONEA, Butte County Sheriff; GREGORY JO AHERN, Alameda County Sheriff; SPENCER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Lisa Marie Perez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations while she

*

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).

was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Perez’s Fourth Amendment claim related to the December 2016 strip search because Perez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the strip search was unreasonable. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979) (setting forth factors to be considered when evaluating whether search was unreasonable under Fourth Amendment); Johnson v. Neilson (In re Slatkin), 525 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A] summary judgment proceeding does not deprive the losing party of its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Perez’s motion “for review of case dismissal” (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-129

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Perez v. Moreland, (9th Cir. 2025).

Perez v. Moreland (Perez v. Moreland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Donell v. Kowell
533 F.3d 762 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Slatkin v. Neilson
525 F.3d 805 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Padgett v. Wright
587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)