McNeely
McNeely v. County of Sacramento
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*319 MEMORANDUM **
Dock McNeely appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Sacramento County defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , review de novo, Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2001), and affirm.
Before the district court, McNeely argued that the Sacramento County defendants should not have detained McNeely based upon the Placer County warrant, but he has not pursued that argument on appeal, so it is waived. The claim that the sheriff violated McNeely’s constitutional rights by acting pursuant to a facially valid warrant and court order fails, in any event, as “[l]aw enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they act reasonably under the circumstances, even if the actions result in a constitutional violation.” Ramirez v. Butte-Silver Bow County, 298 F.3d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir.2002). Faithful execution of a facially valid warrant and court order cannot be characterized as unreasonable.
On appeal, McNeely asserts a Mo-nell 1 claim couched in terms of the sheriffs alleged failure to notify him of “adverse legal actions.” However, he failed to plead this…