Lopez
Lopez v. Bartlett
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Sergio Lopez challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment sua sponte in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to Defendant Officer Shawn Bartlett. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Edgerly v. City and County of S.F., 495 F.3d 645, 658 (9th Cir.2007). Where the facts are not disputed, we must determine “whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” Providence Health System-Wash. v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 661 , 664 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). We review de novo the reasonableness of an investigatory stop, United States v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2007), and whether a party is entitled to qualified immunity, Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir.2007).
Lopez argues that Bartlett had insufficient facts to support a conclusion that the traffic stop was lawful. We disagree.
Bartlett stopped Lopez based on: (1) his knowledge of a report to the police by James Ash that Mexican gang members threatened to harm Ash at his residence; (2) his observation of two Hispanic men making a slow turn and looking at Ash’s apartment; (3)…