Salazar

MEMORANDUM **

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Qwest Commc’ns Inc. v. Berkeley, 433 F.3d 1253 , 1256 (9th Cir.2006). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non- *643 moving party, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 921-22 (9th Cir.2004).

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. “A ‘seizure’ of property ... occurs when ‘there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.’ ” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 61 , 113 S.Ct. 538 , 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992) (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 , 104 S.Ct. 1652 , 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984)).

The district court recited this test but failed to apply it. The district court ruled that Plaintiffs were not dispossessed of any property, but failed to address the mixed factual and legal issue whether Plaintiffs even had a…