Sergei Portnoy v. City of Woodland

MEMORANDUM

Sergei Portnoy appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations arising from his arrest at his home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Portnoy’s Fourth Amendment claims related to his arrest, because Portnoy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he gave consent to defendants to enter his home, whether defendants had probable cause to arrest him for fraudulently cashing a check with insufficient funds, and whether the protective sweep was justified based on a reasonable suspicion of danger. See Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir.2010) (consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement); Blankenhom v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 471 (9th Cir.2007) (warrantless arrest permissible where probable cause exists); Cal.Penal Code § 476a(a) (any person who willfully makes or delivers a check with knowledge that it has insufficient funds is subject to imprisonment…