Philip Bikle v. A. Santos
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Philip C. Bikle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action arising out of a traffic citation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bikle’s action as frivolous because Bikle’s claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 , 109 S.Ct. 1827 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (a “frivolous” claim lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact; “[the] term ‘frivolous’ ... embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”); see also New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 114, 117-18 , 106 S.Ct. 960 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986) (there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in a vehicle’s VIN -number under the Fourth Amendment); of. In re Arturo D., 27 Cal.4th 60 , 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 38 P.3d 433, 450-51 (2002) (a police officer’s limited search of the vehicle’s glove compartment and other areas constituted a reasonable search when the plaintiff was unable to produce a driver’s license and registration).