Portnoy v. County of Yolo, 052715 FED9, 13-17321
|Party Name:||SERGEI PORTNOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF YOLO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 27, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 13, 2015 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California No. 2:13-cv-00314-JAM-KJN John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Sergei Portnoy appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations arising from his detention in county jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 12(b)(6)); Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005) (§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Portnoy's state law claims because Portnoy failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act. See Cal. Gov't Code § 945.4 (claims presentment is necessary before suing public entities); id. § 950.2 (if action against public entity is barred under the chapter beginning with § 945, action against public employee is also barred); see also Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist. 164 P.3d 630, 634 (Cal. 2007) (timely claims presentation is a condition precedent to, and an element of, any claim against a public entity or its employees).
The district court properly dismissed Portnoy's Fourth Amendment claim related to his arrest, because the issues had been previously litigated by Portnoy and were necessary to the prior summary judgment. See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirements for collateral estoppel).
The district court properly dismissed Portnoy's Fourth Amendment claim related to his probable cause determination, because the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on a reasonable belief that a judge had made a positive finding of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (reasonable mistakes of law or fact protected by qualified immunity); see also County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991) (concluding judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours of a warrantless...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP