Edward Dayton v. City of Fairfield ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD R. DAYTON, No. 18-17115
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:17-cv-01898-KJM-KJN
v.
CITY OF FAIRFIELD; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees,
and
CHRISTINA L. BROWNING,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Edward R. Dayton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
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).
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
from a property inspection and nuisance abatement procedures carried out at his
residence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Keates v.
Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dayton’s due process claim under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because Dayton failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that he was not afforded notice and meaningful opportunities to
be heard. See Schneider v. County of San Diego, 28 F.3d 89, 92 (9th Cir. 1994).
The district court properly dismissed Dayton’s unlawful search and seizure
claim under the Fourth Amendment because Dayton failed to allege facts sufficient
to show a lack of probable cause for the warrant, see United States v. Artis, 919
F.3d 1123, 1131 (9th Cir. 2019), and the warrant was sufficiently particular as to
what could be searched, see Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1064–65
(9th Cir. 2006). See also United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959, 963 (9th Cir.
1986) (a warrant does not fail for lack of specificity “if a more precise description
of the items subject to seizure is not possible”).
The district court properly dismissed Dayton’s privacy claim under the Fifth
and Ninth Amendments because Dayton failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that either amendment provides a basis for Dayton’s alleged right to privacy. See
2 18-17115
Schowengerdt v. United States, 944 F.2d 483, 490 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting
privacy theory under the Ninth Amendment as “meritless”).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-17115