Frank Steffensen v. Casey Mayhew
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Frank Steffensen appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal order and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both a grant of summary judgment, Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2010), and a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Mayhew on the basis of qualified immunity because Mayhew’s authorization of a probationary search of a vehicle was not a clear violation of Steffensen’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (qualified immunity shields “an officer from personal liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law,” and “where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment”).