Perez v. Moreland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-129
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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