Cynthia Brown v. County of Orange

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CYNTHIA LOUISE BROWN, No. 11-55897
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03928-VBF-
JEM
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Cynthia Louise Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated her Fourth
Amendment rights when defendants searched her home. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s judgment on the
pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), Honey v. Distelrath, 195 F.3d 531, 533 (9th
Cir. 1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because the doctrine of
collateral estoppel bars her from relitigating the Fourth Amendment issues
previously decided during her prior criminal proceeding. See Ayers v. City of
Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270-72 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying California law to
give preclusive effect to Fourth Amendment determinations made during a
suppression hearing). Contrary to Brown’s contention, Brown had the opportunity
to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress and she failed to do so. See
Rodriguez v. Superior Court, 245 Cal. Rptr. 617, 620 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding
that defendants may appeal a denial of a motion to suppress so long as the initial
motion was filed within the deadline provided by Cal. Penal Code § 1510).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-55897