Ray
Ray v. Tsunoda
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Judy Faye Coggins Ray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and California law in searching her home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly determined that Ray’s claim that she was subjected to an unreasonable search was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment in Ray’s favor on this claim would necessarily impugn the validity of her guilty plea to violating a municipal code ordinance, and Ray failed to allege that this conviction has been invalidated. See id. at 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 .
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ray’s claims that defendants violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because she was not compelled to be a witness against herself in a criminal case. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 767 , 123 S.Ct. 1994 , 155 L.Ed.2d 984 (2003).