Michael Stewart v. City of San Diego

MEMORANDUM

Michael Lamar Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Picray v. Sealock, 138 F.3d 767, 770 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stewart’s claim alleging that Officer Rowlett illegally searched his person and his vehicle because Stewart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer Rowlett had probable cause to make a warrantless arrest. See United States v. Martin, 509 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir.1975) (in determining whether there is probable cause to make a warrantless arrest, courts consider “all the facts known to the officers and consider all the reasonable inferences that could be drawn by them before the arrest”); see also United States v. Osife, 398 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir.2005) (when officers arrest an occupant of a vehicle, they may search the arrestee’s person and the entire passenger compartment of the car).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stewart’s claims alleging that Officer Rowlett caused him to…