Lvmpd

MEMORANDUM

Bruce Feaster appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights in connection with a search of his room. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 790 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Feaster failed to establish a triable dispute as to whether his consent to the search was voluntary, given that, among other considerations, the officers’ guns were not drawn, he was detained in a public place for a relatively short time, and he read and signed a consent to search card that conveyed his rights not to have a search conducted without a search warrant and to refuse to consent. See Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1082 (9th Cir.2011) (listing factors relevant to determining voluntariness of the consent to a search); see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 558-59 , 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (knowledge of the right to refuse consent is “highly relevant” in determining whether a consent is valid); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S.…