Lee v. Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALDINE L. LEE, No. 09-17215
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00433-LRH-
RAM
v.
NORTHERN NEVADA ADULT MEMORANDUM *
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Geraldine L. Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the towing of her automobile and her temporary
exclusion from a drop-in mental health center violated her constitutional rights.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v.
Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lee’s claim that the towing of her
vehicle violated due process when, among other reasons, Lee’s car was towed for
being parked for many days in a disabled parking space with an expired disability
placard, and Lee had the opportunity to have a post-tow hearing on whether her
vehicle was wrongly towed. See N.R.S. 487.039 (providing for post-tow hearing);
Goichman v. Rheuban Motors, Inc., 682 F.2d 1320, 1323-25 (9th Cir. 1982) (Due
Process Clause does not entitle owner of towed vehicle to an immediate hearing,
and timely post-deprivation hearing satisfied due process); cf. Scofield v. City of
Hillsborough, 862 F.2d 759, 764 (9th Cir. 1988) (pre-towing notice is not required
for towing of unregistered cars).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lee’s claim that
her temporary exclusion from the Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services
Drop-In Center violated due process, because she had no protected interest in
accessing the center. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims
against defendant Flowers because Lee did not establish good cause to extend the
2 09-17215
deadline for service of process. See Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d
507, 511-12 (9th Cir. 2001).
We do not consider Lee’s other claims because she has not adequately raised
them on appeal. See Entm’t Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc.,
122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“We review only issues which are argued
specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”)
(citation omitted); Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988)
(arguments not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned).
Lee’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-17215